Hi and welcome to this JK B'HAM Crime Report for VPN: REGIONAL NETWORKS:
Recent cases such as that of “GH,” a Jamaican drug dealer who avoided deportation despite being jailed five times in the UK, illustrate a deeply troubling reality about the current state of UK immigration and criminal justice. Under the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and its interpretation of Article 8, which guarantees the “right to family life,” judges in Britain are left with little discretion when it comes to decisions on deporting foreign criminals.
Despite GH’s multiple convictions, including for drug dealing and assaulting his partner in front of his children, he was allowed to remain in the UK. The reason? His daughter was experiencing gender identity issues and had only been able to discuss them with him. In the view of the court, his right to family life outweighed the public interest in his deportation. This decision was upheld even after the Home Office appealed.
While these rulings may be viewed as compassionate, they are ultimately out of touch with the realities that citizens face daily. As former Conservative minister Sir Alec Shelbrooke aptly put it, this decision is “poor,” and it exposes the need for Britain to free itself from the shackles of the ECHR.
Critics argue that judges have discretion in such matters. However, this is a misconception. Under the current framework, judges do not have the flexibility to make decisions based on what they deem is best for the country’s interests. Instead, they are bound by the Human Rights Act of 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. This means that judges must follow the principles laid out in the ECHR, with no room for discretion in cases like these.
If Britain were to leave the ECHR, the 1998 Human Rights Act would be dissolved, and judges would no longer be legally required to consider the rights under the Convention. This would remove the Article 8 constraint and ensure that judges are bound by the 2023 Immigration Act. In such a scenario, deportations would become not only possible but mandatory for foreign criminals who have served sentences over a year. Judges would have no choice but to uphold this new framework, without the need to balance competing interests of family life and public safety.
It’s important to clarify that judges are not “choosing” to defy the public interest when they make these decisions. They are required to apply the law as it stands, which in this case has been shaped by human rights provisions that prioritize certain individual rights over the collective safety of the nation. The misperception that judges have the freedom to make arbitrary decisions, or that they act in their own interests, feeds into narratives that inaccurately portray them as acting outside the law. This simply isn’t the case. The system is the problem, not the judges.
The question remains: Why should the UK allow international conventions to override its domestic interests, especially when these decisions lead to dangerous consequences? Thousands of foreign criminals, freed from UK prisons, have reoffended, committing further crimes including murder, drug dealing, and violent assaults. The public is left to shoulder the costs, both financial and social, of these avoidable decisions. It’s time for change.
Leaving the ECHR and scrapping the Human Rights Act would not be a drastic or unprecedented step. It would simply restore control over immigration policy and criminal justice to British lawmakers and courts, ensuring that national law takes precedence over international laws that no longer reflect the values and priorities of the British people. This is about protecting the rights of ordinary citizens—those who live, work, and raise families in the UK—and ensuring that those who commit crimes face the consequences they deserve.
In conclusion, the ECHR’s influence over our legal system has gone far enough. It is high time that Britain takes back control of its immigration laws, and by doing so, ensures that judges are bound by domestic law alone, not by obligations to international courts. The 2023 Immigration Act, when fully implemented, would put an end to these problematic decisions, making it clear that the public interest in deportation will always take precedence over an individual’s right to family life in the case of foreign criminals.
Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
Jason King
Birmingham City-Desk
Twitter (X) @JasonKingNews
Comments