Here’s an interesting post from the Free Movement blog, concerning a recent story in the Daily Mail. The story concerned a tribunal decision about whether human rights law prevented the deportation of an asylum-seeker convicted of raping a 12 year old girl.

The Free Movement post is interesting for two reasons. First, it is a useful reminder that we should not necessarily believe everything we read in the newspapers (particularly when the story concerns human rights and is published by a newspaper vehemently opposed to the Human Rights Act). Second, the post raises the question whether it is constitutionally acceptable for the Government to criticise decisions made by the courts, and argues that the Government, in this cases, is guilty of “abominable, dishonest behaviour” in its criticism of the tribunal’s decision.

For more discussion of the Mail article, see this post by Adam Wagner on the UK Human Rights Blog. And if you want to read more about press (mis)reporting of legal issues, particularly issues concerning human rights, take a look at this article in the Telegraph and then at this critique of it.

Posted by Mark Elliott

Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge, and Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee. All views on this blog are expressed in a purely personal capacity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s