Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

May be wrong


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

Theresa MayTheresa May this weekend launched a blistering and unprecedented attack on ‘a minority of judges’, accused them of ignoring the will of Parliament by refusing to deport foreign criminals. Remarkably, she said that:

A minority think it is their role to determine whether or not foreigners who commit serious crimes shall be deported.

A lawyer’s answer is that this is exactly what judges have been appointed to do and indeed instructed to do by primary legislation passed by Parliament. It is not their role to do as May demands in every single case. This is not North Korea.

Back in June 2012 I wrote that:

May wants judges always to answer ‘yes’ to [the question of whether removal should take place] in every case, but in law they cannot. Our judges remain independent and must carry out an independent assessment. The only ways to achieve what May wants are:

1. Modify the Human Rights Act

2. Withdraw from the Council of Europe

3. Remove access to the courts, or

4. Do away with an independent judiciary.

The nature of her attack on the judges comes perilously close to number 4 on the list. Fortunately, Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor, acted swiftly to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary, as is his obligation under s.3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and issued a statement clarifying May’s myriad misconceptions. It is such a relief to have him in post standing up for the rule of law, otherwise things might have gotten nasty.

As Mr Grayling has done such a fine job, there is no need to repeat the exercise here. May’s claims are clearly nonsense in a legal sense. But it is wrong to see this attack on judges as remotely legal in nature. It is a very effective piece of political posturing that cements her position as a Conservative Party leadership contender.

I wrote previously that the recent human rights cases dealing with the contentious new rules ‘represent a demolition of the Government’s attempts to gain exclusive ownership over Article 8′ (emphasis added to original). I stand by that statement. Parliament has not abolished or modified the Human Rights Act, which continues to bind judges. The debate in the Commons so heavily relied on by May was a farce (read it for yourself, as well as the scrutiny committee report linked yesterday). We still more or less have separation of powers in this country. The judges must continue to rule according to laws passed by Parliament, not according to Government dictat.

If May’s attack can be taken at face value, though, it looks like a time is coming when Parliament will modify the Human Rights Act by passing primary legislation. I doubt many if any politicians would be willing to side against her on behalf of foreign criminals. Once the principle of exception is established, which unpopular group will be next? Foreigners generally? Terrorist suspects? Home grown criminals? Benefits claimants? The disabled? Some religious, ethnic or racial groups? Human rights cease to be universally human when some humans are pushed into the cold outside the tent.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Free Movement

Free Movement

The Free Movement blog was founded in 2007 by Colin Yeo, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers specialising in immigration law. The blog provides updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law by a variety of authors.


5 Responses

  1. May is an undemocratic autocrat politician trying to stir up the populist uninformed for her own career ambitions.
    She has flouted the law all the time she has been in office.
    But the truth is catching up with her she will fall in time!

  2. Even if she manages to amend the Human Rights Act to exclude various groups of ‘undesirables’, won’t the Judges still have to take the ECHR and it’s court decisions into account, unless she’s planning to pull out of the treaty.

  3. The tribunal should accordingly entertain both sides’ submissions on the public interest, along with such elements as the nature and gravity of the offence; but the fact that one estimation of the public interest (or of any other element) is the Home Secretary’s, whether leaning towards or against deportation in the particular case, commands no additional weight. To let it do so – as counsel for the Home Secretary have implicitly recognised – would be to upset the equal footing on which the Crown and the individual come before this country’s tribunals and courts, not least when Parliament has already decided where, other things being equal, the public interest lies. It would also impinge on the independence and impartiality of the tribunal by requiring it to defer to one side’s judgment of a material question.

    Rocky Gurung -v- SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 62

  4. ‘May be wrong’ perfectly assessed consequences of the Secretary of State’s long term effects of judiciary bashing by observing that;

    “Once the principle of exception is established, which unpopular group will be next?” by eliciting a number of possible victims that May fall into her draconian proposals. Pity, though, it did not exactly spelt out the analogy to which it is historically identified with, for instance;-

    ‘They came for the Jews, then the socialists, communists and the trade unions, and then the sick and the weak etc’……………

  5. There are human rights which are a part of modern democratic states and legal systems based on the rule of law. Whilst their implementation remains haphazard, it nonetheless remains fundamental that they be above and beyond politics. That means that they, like proper written constitutions, are a constraint on government laws and actions. This applies amongst other instruments to the ECHR. As long as poliitcs and governments continue to seek to water them down, limit them or even talk of abolishing them, democracy based on the rule of law will continue to suffer for the interests of those with the money and power to weaken them.