Keir Starmer Blasted for ‘Empty Promises’ as Foreign Criminals Exploit Human Rights Loopholes”
Over 10,000 migrants have crossed the English Channel so far this year, and now there’s a new battle happening over how Britain handles foreign criminals, especially sex offenders. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been warned that under the current system, foreign sex offenders fighting deportation will still be able to rely heavily on the European Convention on Human Rights, known as the ECHR. Even though Labour recently promised to stop convicted sex offenders from claiming asylum, critics say the government’s plan is weak and will not solve the real problem.
The biggest concern centers around Article 3 of the ECHR, which protects everyone from torture and inhumane treatment. Some legal experts and politicians are warning that this article can actually overrule the Refugee Convention, meaning that even serious criminals could still claim they have a right to stay in the UK under human rights laws.
When Starmer recently said he was “changing the system” to stop foreign sex offenders from claiming asylum, it sparked a strong backlash. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp accused Starmer of being dishonest. Philp explained that criminals would simply use Article 3 of the ECHR to stay, no matter what Labour says. He pointed out that when the Conservatives had tried to change the law to make it easier to deport foreign criminals by limiting human rights claims, Labour actually voted against it. According to Philp, Starmer’s promise is just empty words and won’t fix anything.
The Home Office has now announced that foreign sex offenders will be blocked from getting refugee status, which is supposed to make it easier to deport them. This new policy comes after public outrage over the case of Abdul Ezedi, the Clapham chemical attacker. Ezedi was granted asylum even though he had already been convicted in 2018 for sexual assault and indecent exposure. He later attacked his ex-partner and her two children with a chemical substance, sparking a massive manhunt that ended with his body being found in the River Thames.
Officials at the Home Office believe that including all sex offences, no matter how small, in the new rules could help persuade immigration judges to deport offenders more easily. Right now, only crimes that resulted in a sentence of more than 12 months were considered “serious” enough to trigger deportation. The new rule would change that standard.
However, many people believe the changes won’t make much difference unless Britain leaves the ECHR altogether. Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman said the government’s promises are just “hollow words” because under the ECHR, Britain can still be blocked from deporting criminals even if it really wants to. She repeated her call for Britain to leave the ECHR so that the country can truly take back control of its borders.
Chris Philp also criticised the Labour government for acting too late. He said that Labour had already made things worse by removing some of the previous government’s efforts to stop illegal migration. This year has already seen a record 10,000 people cross the Channel, the worst ever. He warned that foreign criminals continue to be a real danger to British citizens, and too often they use fake human rights claims to avoid deportation. He said Labour’s new plan is just a desperate move to look strong before an election.
Even with the new changes, foreign criminals will still be able to appeal deportations by using human rights laws, especially Article 3 and Article 8 of the ECHR. Article 8 protects the right to a private and family life, and many offenders have used it in the past to argue that deporting them would separate them from their families.
Former government adviser Rajiv Shah also warned that the latest promises from the government would not work in reality. He said that even if the Refugee Convention allows criminals to be deported, the ECHR still blocks it. Shah explained that an attempt had been made before by Conservative MP Edward Leigh to fix this by giving priority to the Refugee Convention over the ECHR, but government ministers rejected it because they didn’t want to weaken the ECHR’s power.
According to Shah, the real problem is how Article 3 has been interpreted over time. It has been treated as absolute — meaning no matter how serious the crime, deportation could still be blocked because the criminal might face bad treatment in another country. This interpretation has tied Britain’s hands when it comes to removing dangerous offenders.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper admitted there’s a serious issue. She said immigration judges have often gone too far in how they apply human rights laws, making it even harder to deport criminals. Cooper said that too many decisions have been made by courts without a clear framework, allowing human rights rules to be stretched in ways Parliament never intended.
Cooper believes that there’s a way to fix this. She said it’s possible to rewrite and strengthen the legal framework so that courts have clearer rules on how to interpret international law. She also confirmed that a review is now underway to look specifically at how Article 8, the right to a family life, has been applied in courts.
In interviews, Cooper admitted that even under Labour’s new plans, foreign sex offenders could still try to stay in Britain by using human rights laws. When asked if these criminals could be completely stopped from using the ECHR to appeal their deportation, she said that obstacles will still exist. However, she insisted the government’s first priority is to remove their right to claim asylum protection if they have committed serious crimes.
Even though Labour’s plan sounds tough, many experts, politicians, and former ministers are warning that it’s nowhere near enough. As long as Britain remains tied to the ECHR, it will stay difficult — if not impossible — to deport foreign criminals who know how to work the system.
