A retired senior immigration judge has challenged widespread media narratives on human rights and deportation, citing official data that shows a very small proportion of foreign offenders successfully use human rights grounds to remain in the UK.
Clarifying the 'Right to Family Life'
In a letter to the Guardian, Jane Coker, a retired upper tribunal judge from the immigration and asylum chamber, took issue with the common media phrase "the right to family life." She emphasised that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) actually protects the right to respect for family life under Article 8.
She pointed to the Bonavero report from the University of Oxford, which clarifies that this article can only prevent a deportation if the impact on the family would be "unduly harsh." Furthermore, the consequences of deportation must be shown to outweigh the public interest in removing the offender.
"Having a child or partner in the UK does not mean that a foreign national offender can successfully appeal on human rights grounds," Coker stated, directly countering a frequent public misconception.
The Real Statistics on Deportation Appeals
The judge presented a key statistic that is often absent from heated political debates. The number of foreign national offenders who successfully invoked human rights grounds to prevent their deportation is just 0.73% of the total number of foreign offenders.
Coker also highlighted a significant gap in official data. She noted that the Home Office does not keep – or at least does not publish – statistics showing how many offenders are removed immediately after serving their sentences versus those who are not, despite a valid deportation order being in place.
She observed that some of those not removed promptly go on to commit further serious crimes, a point often raised in public discourse but lacking clear official figures.
A Call for Evidence-Based Policy and Resources
In her conclusion, the retired judge argued that the current discourse around deportation and human rights is frequently not evidence-based. She suggested that sufficient resources are not directed at enforcement, leading to systemic failures.
"If the discourse were more evidence-based and sufficient resources directed at enforcement rather than blaming judges and the law for its own failures, perhaps the Home Office would actually be able to deal with the problem," Coker wrote.
Her intervention serves as a direct appeal for a more factual public conversation, grounded in the actual workings of the law and the real, quantifiable challenges facing the deportation system.
