header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 October 2011 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7486 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

No laughing matter

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll