header-logo header-logo

21 October 2011 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7486 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

No laughing matter

Geoffrey Bindman QC examines the furore behind “catgate"

The prime minister and the home secretary are pursuing a campaign of opposition to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), which they blame for preventing the deportation of foreign criminals. The illustrations on which they have based their complaints have repeatedly misrepresented the facts. As the world now knows, the home secretary referred at the Conservative party conference earlier this month to “the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because—and I am not making this up—he had a pet cat”. This was untrue. If the home secretary did not make it up someone made it up on her behalf. The immigrant had a cat but the Judicial Communications Office issued a statement pointing out that the cat had nothing to do with the decision. The lawyers in the case confirmed this. Nor did the case involve a criminal conviction. The immigrant was a student seeking leave to remain in the UK because he had established a long term relationship (over four years) with a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll