header-logo header-logo

18 October 2007 / Craig Barlow , Jason M Hadden
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Features , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail

What lurks beneath

The scars left by the murder of headmaster Philip Lawrence were deepened by the failure to deport his killer. Here, Jason M Hadden and Craig Barlow discuss the issues

A mid hysterical press coverage, on 21 August 2007 the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) held that the home secretary could not lawfully deport convicted murderer Learco Chindamo from the UK to Italy (IA/13107/2006).

That day on BBC News 24 the junior minister, Tony McNulty MP, informatively opined to viewers that by reaching that conclusion the AIT had misunderstood or misapplied the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). Similarly, on 16 September 2007 the former home secretary, Dr John Reid, writing in the News of the World, suggested that public confidence in HRA 1998 had been damaged citing, among other examples, the Chindamo decision.

The reality, however, is that HRA 1998 has little to do with the outcome in Chindamo, the result was sadly inevitable and the culmination of a legislative and public policy fiasco that promises to repeat itself.

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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