Records show the number of foreign criminals in the UK are the equivalent of a 'small town' according to MPs.Read the full story ›
Despite pleas that she has no family in her native country - plus a growing online petition - Myrtle Cothill must return to South Africa.Read the full story ›
Iain Duncan Smith has backed Theresa May’s attack on judges who she blames for "subverting" British democracy by ignoring new rules aimed at deporting more foreign criminals.
The Work and Pensions Secretary told The Andrew Marr Show: “The point she is making, I think, is generally supported by pretty much anyone in Parliament who has any common sense.
"Over a period of time, judges seem to have moved across to the idea that somehow this right to have a family life trumps all other rights…
“Parliament [wants to] know that if a criminal committed a crime, they [judges] should be in a much stronger position to extradite them and kick them out if they came from overseas.”
Home Secretary Theresa May added judges who allowed prisoners to remain were also guilty of reinforcing public perceptions of human right as "legal dodges that allow criminals to escape proper punishment and to continue to prey on the public.
This is not a dispute about respect for human rights, which I certainly agree is an essential part of any decent legal system.
It is about how to balance rights against each other: in particular, the individual's right to family life, the right of the individual to be free from violent crime, and the right of society to protect itself against foreign criminals.
Mrs May insisted that she was "a great admirer of most of the judges in Britain" and accepted the need for the power of government ministers to be "reviewed and restrained" by the judiciary.
"But the law in this country is made by the elected representatives of the people in Parliament. And our democracy is subverted when judges decide to take on that role for themselves."
The Home Secretary said she was determined to bring forward a new law making it clear the deportation should be the norm in everything but "extraordinary circumstances".
It is depressing that the steps we have already taken should have been insufficient to produce that result.
The inevitable delays inherent in passing primary legislation will mean that there will be many more foreign criminals who successfully avoid deportation on the basis that they have a family here.
There will also be more victims of violent crimes committed by foreigners in this country - foreigners who should have been, and could have been, deported.
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, Theresa May warned judges that primary legislation needs to be brought in to enable the Government to deport more foreign criminals.
Unfortunately, some judges evidently do not regard a debate in Parliament on new immigration rules, followed by the unanimous adoption of those rules, as evidence that Parliament actually wants to see those new rules implemented.
One judge, she noted, had justified his decision on the basis that the new guidance had been subject only to "a weak form of Parliamentary scrutiny".
It is essential to democracy that the elected representatives of the people make the laws that govern this country - and not the judges.
Yet some judges seem to believe that they can ignore Parliament's wishes if they think that the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny have been 'weak'. That appears actually to mean that they can ignore Parliament when they think it came to the wrong conclusion.
Home Secretary Theresa May accused judges of "subverting" British democracy and making the streets of Britain more dangerous by ignoring new rules aimed at deporting more foreign criminals.
In a scathing attack, she vowed to introduce primary legislation to restrict the human rights of offenders after a minority of the judiciary decided to "ignore parliament's wishes".
But she warned the delay in getting that onto the statute book would inevitably mean "more victims of violent crimes committed by foreigners in this country".
MPs approved new guidance for judges in July last year making clear the right to a family life - set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - was only qualified.
Ali was reportedly jailed for three years at Sheffield Crown Court and released in 2008, when the Home Office ordered that he return to Sudan and he was locked up in an immigration removal centre.
But he appealed to an immigration court and though a judge rejected his bid, he mounted a fresh appeal to the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, the Mail on Sunday reported.
He was allowed to stay because deporting him, the court ruling showed, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The UK Border Agency has reacted with fury to a court ruling allowing a Sudanese asylum seeker who raped a 12-year-old girl to remain in Britain.
Sani Adil Ali, 28, originally from Darfur and part of a threatened tribe, originally came to Britain in 2003 and was awarded refugee status in February 2005, it was reported.
But only a few months later he was arrested at his home in Middlesbrough and later admitted one count of raping the girl, who was Hungarian.
Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to take action on the legislation that helps foreign criminals stay in the UK.
Top lawyers said it was not up to parliament to decide how a judge should rule in a case. Geoffrey Robertson QC said in The Telegraph:
The government cannot predetermine the results of individual cases which all depend on careful and compassionate assessment of very different facts.