Misinformation being ‘whipped up’ over immigration cases – Attorney General
Lord Hermer, however, said it was ‘entirely right’ for the Home Secretary to conduct a review on the use of Article 8 in migration cases in the UK.
Misinformation is being “whipped up” over asylum and immigration cases in relation to international human rights law, the Government’s top legal adviser has said.
Lord Richard Hermer KC warned there is a “real job on misinformation” around Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to private and family life, in how it is applied to immigration cases in the UK.
Giving evidence to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights on Wednesday, the Attorney General said: “There is clearly a lot of information, misinformation, that is being whipped up in the context of asylum and immigration in particular, Article 8.
“Many of you will have heard banded around the idea that the courts have allowed a foreign national offender to stay here because his child will miss chicken McNuggets.
“That is doing the rounds.
“What is not doing the rounds is that that case went to the Upper Tribunal, who categorically rejected that as an Article 8 argument.
“They rejected the claim.”
He added: “Courts are always going to make mistakes.
“That’s why we have appeal courts, and that’s what’s happened here.”
The senior lawyer however said it was “entirely right” for the Home Secretary to conduct a review on the use of Article 8 in migration cases in the UK.
Yvette Cooper confirmed on Monday the review will be particularly focusing on cases where ministers have disagreed with the conclusions reached in the courts.
Several deportation attempts have been halted by how the ECHR clause has been interpreted in UK law.
Lord Hermer said there has been a “rise” in the number of decisions reported at First Tier immigration tribunals on the basis of Article 8 that are “capable of suggesting that it is not being applied properly or appropriately”.
He told the committee: “I want to make clear in all my comments about decisions of any court that I am categorically not criticising judges.
“I think there is real merit in checking that Article 8 is being properly understood and applied, because, as I’ve said, you can have a very, very robust but fair process in asylum and immigration context that is entirely compatible with Article 8.”
He added there needs to be checks on the “right calibration” of casework decisions and also that the Government is being robust in appealing against decisions.
“Completely understand that people are concerned, so are we,” he said.
“We are determined to ensure that the immigration asylum system is as robust, efficient and fair as it can be, and you can do an awful lot that is compatible.
“All of this I should stress will be within Article 8.”
Elsewhere, the Attorney General was quizzed by MPs and peers on how he ensures the Government receives impartial advice on questions of human rights law after a “long career at the bar”.
It comes after Lord Hermer faced questions about how his previous work, including representing former Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, could result in possible conflicts of interest in his Government work.
But he replied: “Well, I think the short answer is that’s by doing the best I can.”
“It’s absolutely essential that governments of whatever colour receive objective, legal advice.”
