A retired senior immigration judge has challenged widespread media narratives on human rights and deportation, citing official data that shows a minuscule proportion of foreign national offenders successfully block their removal from the UK.
Clarifying the 'Right to Family Life'
In a letter to the Guardian, retired Upper Tribunal Judge Jane Coker corrected a frequent mischaracterisation in public debate. She emphasised that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to respect for family life, not an absolute 'right to family life'.
Judge Coker pointed to the University of Oxford's Bonavero report, which clarifies that Article 8 of the convention can only prevent deportation if the impact on the family would be 'unduly harsh' and this consequence demonstrably outweighs the public interest in removing the offender.
The Real Statistics on Deportation Appeals
The most striking fact presented challenges the scale of the problem often portrayed. Only 0.73% of foreign national offenders successfully invoke human rights grounds to prevent their deportation.
Judge Coker was clear that simply having a child or partner in the UK does not guarantee a successful appeal. The legal threshold, as defined, is significantly higher.
She also highlighted a critical gap in government transparency, noting that the Home Office does not appear to release statistics on how many offenders are removed immediately after prison versus those who are not, despite a valid deportation order. This lack of data, she suggests, obscures the reality of enforcement.
A Call for Evidence-Based Policy and Resources
The retired judge concluded that the discourse around deportation and human rights is often lacking in evidence. She argued that sufficient resources should be directed at enforcement, rather than blaming judges and the law for systemic failures.
'If the discourse were more evidence-based and sufficient resources directed at enforcement... perhaps the Home Office would actually be able to deal with the problem,' she wrote.
This intervention from an experienced legal professional seeks to reframe a heated political issue around verifiable data and precise legal definitions, urging a move away from misleading terminology.
