To be so upset that the leader of the Rochdale grooming gang has been allowed to stay in the UK!

[vermicello]

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ringleader-rochdales-infamous-sex-grooming-24336978

Those poor girls. It is like they have been abused twice, first by him and his fellow groomers and secondly by the UK justice system, police and social workers. It is sending them a big message that their right to feel safe and protected is not a concern. I can't imagine how traumatic it must be to know you could bump into your abuser at any time and nothing can be done about it. Our justice system is a disgrace.

To top it all off, he has apparently received hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal aid courtesy of taxpayers. I really don't want my taxes wasted on people like him. So upsetting and infuriating!

He is a British citizen therefore he has a right to stay here. Why are we still banging on about taking away people's human rights.

The issue is the length of sentencing.

If a person has come to the UK and committed horrific crimes, why should they be allowed to stay?

Because that’s where they committed the crime.

Call me basic but if a person is arrested, charged, tried and convicted under the laws of Country A, Country A should be where they serve their sentence. It’s a sort of legal equivalent of ‘cleaning up your own mess’.

Arguing differently because a sentence is seen as being too lenient is conflating two issues that have little, if anything, to do with each other. If you want tougher sentences for child abusers you have to campaign for that wholesale, regardless of where the perpetrator comes from.

Honestly. So many people on this thread who appear to have got their working knowledge of the HRA from Richard Littlejohn columns.

I think most people would argue that child abusers don’t deserve human rights.

It was impossible to report the leader of this gang as he gave up his other citizenship a few days before they changed to law to make it legal to strip someone of their British citizenship if they had another.

There are now 2 others from that gang who still have dual citizenship when the law changed and could be deported but are arguing this would be unfair as the leader was permitted to stay.

Deport not report, sorry.

Do explain exactly which sections of the Human Rights Act or the Human Rights Convention (which we largely wrote) changed the law on releasing people at the end of sentences, and on Citizenship, and which sections force other countries to refuse to accept non-citizens?

Not this old balls again.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15160326

The whole point of human rights is that everybody has them. The clue is in the name.

Re child abuser I think we need to review this and make the balance more in favour of the abused child.

One some one crosses that line I think they have to accept they have forfeiture some of those rights.
Personally I'd castrate! Chemically. They offer this in the US. But obviously we wouldn't physically abuse these men so many rights are intact regardless however the consequence of cross that line need to be more severe.

Well, human rights work both ways 🤷‍♂️

I fundamentally disagree. If we can’t uphold basic standards of treatment for the very worst of society, even when they have committed the most horrible crimes, we’re failing society as a whole.

I'm not sure that some posters here are familiar with what the HRA / ECHR actually provides for. The rights enshrined in it are either extremely basic (right to life, freedom from torture, right to a fair trial) or qualified (right to liberty UNLESS lawfully imprisoned, right to private life UNLESS necessary in a democratic society, right to freedom of religion UNLESS interference justified etc etc).

There is no human right to a risibly short sentence. Take that up with the Sentencing Council who provide the guidelines.

There are rights relating to statelessness, but these are not governed by the HRA or ECHR but by the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

British citizenship is acquired at birth or on application, but once granted can only be removed through a deprivation of citizenship process. This is not done through the HRA but through the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended in later years).

Deprivation of citizenship will only engage the HRA / ECHR in rather limited circumstances on Article 8, which is a qualified right, meaning the public interest has to be taken into account. And if you look at the fact sheet on it (these are produced by the European Court and generally a good starting point to get a feel for how the court approaches cases), you will see that in all cases bar one the ECtHR has come down on the side of the depriving state rather than the individual being deprived. The only one which was upheld was one where Russia deprived a man of citizenship for failing to provide the names of his brothers in his application, which was considered arbitrary as Russia wasn't able to say why it might have been relevant. www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Citizenship_Deprivation_ENG.pdf

More details on the cat story here:

In his six-page ruling, the judge said: ‘In 2005 the appellant and his partner acquired a cat, whom they called Maya and who has lived with them since that date.’

He revealed that the Home Office had rejected arguments from the man that removing him would have ‘consequences’ for Maya.

The Home Office’s initial ruling stated: ‘Although you have a cat called Maya she is considered to be able to adapt to life abroad with her owners.
‘While your cat’s material quality of life in Bolivia may not be at the same standard as in the United Kingdom, this does not give rise to a right to remain in the United Kingdom.’

But Judge Devitte stated unequivocally: ‘The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that [the] appellant and his partner enjoy.’

Bizarrely, he added: ‘In Canada and to a much lesser extent in the United States there is an increasing recognition of the significance that pets occupy in family life and of the potentially serious emotional consequences pet owners may suffer when some unhappy event terminates the bond they have with a pet.

‘The Canadian courts have moved away from the legal view that animals are merely chattels, to a recognition that they play an important role in the lives of their owners and that the loss of a pet has a significant emotional impact on its owner.’

The Home Office appealed the ruling and the Bolivian – whose name is blacked out in the court documents – won on different grounds at a later hearing which found the department had not followed its own rules. The Appeal judge described the argument about the cat as ‘irrational’.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045794/Theresa-May-cat-claim-Truth-Tory-cat-gate-row.html

That's a VERY selective quoting exercise by the Mail there, what a surprise.

There's a detailed analysis of the first decision here: ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/10/06/what-the-first-catgate-appeal-judgment-actually-says/

And of the second appeal, overturning the first decision but allowing the appeal anyway, here: ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/10/04/cat-had-nothing-to-do-with-failure-to-deport-man/

So, what are the victims human rights and right to family life in this situation? Do they have a right not to see their abuser in their home town? Seems to me that human rights laws are great in theory but in reality seem to offer much better protection and rights to their abusers/criminals. Can the victims actually use human rights laws in any way now to get protection for themselves or simply so they don't have to experience the trauma of seeing their abusers out and about? Do they have any rights at all?

Yes - so the way the HRA / ECHR works is that these are the rights individuals have, enforceable against the state. They are not enforceable against other individuals (except in very niche privacy circumstances not relevant to this thread).

This means that the HRA means that the state must not engage in torture or inhuman and degrading treatment - so a police officer must not punch you while arresting you, but if you get punched in the head in a bar brawl you can't allege that the perpetrator breached your human rights, because the puncher in the second situation is an individual not the state.

In this particular situation, the victims could quite reasonably be re-traumatised by seeing their rapist out and about in their home town. That could be a breach of Article 8 (right to private life) and potentially Article 3 (freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment).

An offender will be released on licence, which means that the non-custodial part of his sentence is in the community. This is the bit about only serving half or two thirds of a sentence in prison - on release he will still have conditions attached and if he breaches them he can be recalled to prison.

There are 'standard' licence conditions which apply to everyone, and then also conditions which are tailored to an individual, see here: www.gov.uk/government/news/licence-conditions-and-how-the-parole-board-use-them

One available condition is restriction of residence, so the parole board can order that a rapist is excluded from a particular town or area. If they failed to put that condition in, the victims could use the HRA to bring a case against the parole board asserting that the parole board's decision breached their rights under Articles 3 and 8. They would probably be entitled to legal aid.

In terms of value of the HRA to victims, victims of black cab rapist John Worboys used the HRA to argue that failures in effective police investigation amounted to a breach of their Article 3 rights: www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/11.html

TheodoreMortlock
That's a VERY selective quoting exercise by the Mail there, what a surprise.

I think I was fair to both sides in my selective quoting.

This. Absolutely disgusting they weren’t each given 20 years. Free to do it again.

It's a real shame he was given British citizenship in the first place, he wasn't born here was he?

I think most people would argue that child abusers don’t deserve human rights.

Something like 40% of Americans think women who need abortions don't deserve human rights.

All this discussion about this one high profile media case - what you suggest is done with the grooming gangs comprised of white British men (which is the vast majority of grooming gangs) that get no or little press coverage? What about the human rights of the girls raped and trafficked by the 90% of paedophiles who are white?

I'm more stunned that he only did 4 years. Shows how little the system values kids.

Exactly. We need a total overhaul of the criminal justice system, especially with regard to sexual offenses.

Even the right to life is a qualified right.

Find the text of the ECHR and look at what Article 2 actually says.

It might shock you.

@PetraBP indeed - although it's often referred to as one of the absolute rights, there are exceptions for when "absolutely necessary." I think fair enough to refer to it as a basic right, although perhaps it would have been better phrased as the rights are basic, qualified, or both.

He should be monitored, he probably won't be though, "not enough resources" etc etc. If any of the victims threaten him in any way, I'm sure the police will find the manpower to arrest them though.