warrenm2

So it turns out the number of foreign criminals avoiding deportation is up 50% since last year, including up to 15 murderers, five offenders convicted of manslaughter, 25 rapists and 140 robbers.

The sooner we leave the EU and scrap the HRA the better. How many criminals must we take before the nay sayers realise the problem?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...portation.html

paulr

Reading the article, it doesn't mention the EU, just a home office error.

warrenm2

*sigh* Have a read http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

dpb

Let's hope they all reside in Surrey

neil-h

So out of idle curiosity, what should we replace it with?

warrenm2

Why do we need to have anything replacing it at all? What "problem" does it solve? Most of the essential things like torture are already illegal.

Martin2005

The ECHR, for all its faults, guarantees the rights of the individual over the state. If we decide to opt-out we'd need to replace it with something - I assume that you agree that the rights of the individual are important and worth protecting?

neil-h

Thanks Martin, saved me thinking up an appropriate response.

hodgy0_2

because it has little to do with the EU

CrisPDuk

The EHCR also requires participating governments to abide by their own legal system, and the root of our problems when deporting foreign criminals lies within our own criminal justice system.

Our law requires that a deportation order be suspended whilst any appeals are held, and a good ambulance chaser can string an appeal out for years

Where most of our European neighbours differ, and the real reason they appear to be getting away with going against the ECHR, is that they don't suspend existing court orders pending appeals. Their legal systems say 'yes, of course you may appeal, but do it from whence you came, and good luck with that'