The ECHR and the Challenge of Deporting Foreign Criminals: A Call for Change

In recent years, the debate surrounding the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and its influence on the United Kingdom’s ability to deport foreign criminals has intensified. The case of Dorian Puka, an Albanian national who has been jailed for burglary and deported twice, only to sneak back into Britain and flaunt his wealth by posting videos of himself driving a £300,000 Ferrari, has brought this issue to the forefront. The situation raises critical questions about national sovereignty, the rule of law, and the effectiveness of the ECHR in protecting the rights of citizens versus those of foreign nationals.

The ECHR’s Role in Deportation Cases

The ECHR was established to uphold human rights across Europe, but its rulings have often been contentious, particularly when they appear to prioritize the rights of foreign criminals over the safety and security of citizens. In Puka’s case, despite his criminal history, the UK government finds itself powerless to deport him until his latest asylum claim is fully heard. This delay is a common theme in many deportation cases, where foreign nationals leverage the ECHR’s provisions to prolong their stay in the UK, often at the expense of public safety.

A Pattern of Recidivism

Puka is not an isolated case. Ardit Binaj, another Albanian criminal, entered the UK illegally in 2014 and was jailed for multiple burglaries. After serving his time and being deported, he managed to return to the UK, where he started a family. Binaj successfully argued for his right to remain in the UK based on the ECHR’s ‘right to family life,’ highlighting a loophole that allows foreign criminals to exploit human rights laws to their advantage. This pattern of recidivism raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of the UK’s border control and legal system.

High-Profile Criminals and ECHR Rulings

The issue extends beyond petty criminals. High-profile cases involving serious offenders, such as Wahbi Mohammed, who plotted the 2005 failed bombings in London, illustrate the ECHR’s impact on national security. Despite serving a lengthy prison sentence, Mohammed cannot be deported due to fears of inhumane treatment in Somalia, as ruled by the ECHR. Similarly, Ismail Abdurahman, another accomplice in the bombings, successfully argued against deportation on human rights grounds, even receiving compensation from the UK government after a ruling in his favor.

These cases highlight a troubling trend: the ECHR’s decisions often seem to prioritize the rights of foreign criminals over the safety of the public. Critics argue that this undermines the rule of law and the government’s ability to protect its citizens.

The Composition of the ECHR

One of the most contentious aspects of the ECHR is its composition. Judges come from a variety of countries, some of which have vastly different legal systems and cultural contexts than the UK. For instance, judges from nations like Bosnia, Monaco, and Armenia may not fully grasp the complexities of British law or the societal implications of their rulings. This raises questions about the legitimacy of foreign judges making decisions that directly impact British citizens.

A Call for Sovereignty

The argument for either ignoring the ECHR or withdrawing from it altogether is gaining traction among those who believe that the current system is failing to protect the interests of the UK. Critics argue that the ECHR was not intended to provide a safety net for foreign criminals but rather to uphold fundamental human rights. The notion that judges from small nations with populations smaller than some UK cities can dictate the terms of justice in Britain is seen as an affront to national sovereignty.

Alternatives to the ECHR

While some may argue that leaving the ECHR could isolate the UK from important human rights protections, countries like Canada, Japan, and Australia manage to uphold human rights standards without being bound by the ECHR. These nations demonstrate that it is possible to maintain a commitment to human rights while also prioritizing the safety and security of citizens.

Conclusion

The ongoing debate surrounding the ECHR and its influence on the UK’s ability to deport foreign criminals is complex and multifaceted. As cases like those of Dorian Puka and Ardit Binaj continue to emerge, the call for reform grows louder. Whether through ignoring the ECHR’s rulings or seeking to withdraw from the convention altogether, it is clear that many believe a change is necessary to restore the balance between human rights and public safety. The challenge lies in finding a solution that respects the rights of individuals while ensuring the security and well-being of the nation as a whole.