Human rights legal guidelines are usually not supposed to guard unlawful immigrants and conmen

Ministers should cease bowing to human rights rulings made by “politically correct” judges that profit bogus asylum seekers, terrorists and strikers, a blistering report has warned.

A startling evaluation by a high lawyer has discovered that the woke rulings are defending a “motley” crew of particular curiosity teams as an alternative of the law-abiding majority.

It means the liberal judges – not MPs – are successfully making the principles that are actually being ruthlessly exploited, says barrister Michael Arnheim.

The findings have refuelled Tory requires Britain to stop the European human rights treaty.

Mr Arnheim wrote: “In a nutshell, the problem is that, in practice, human rights law does not actually protect the mass of law-abiding citizens, who should be its beneficiaries, but instead benefits a motley assortment of special interest groups, including illegal migrants, bogus asylum seekers, terrorist suspects, disruptive protesters, strikers, and the beneficiaries of ‘mission creep’ and ‘politically correct’ and simply wrong and unjust court decisions.”

His report Fixing Human Rights Law, printed by the impartial Civitas suppose tank mentioned that the federal government has slavishly accepted a “liberal” misinterpretation of Strasbourg guidelines by the UK’s home courts.

It advises small boats should be escorted again throughout the Channel and British seashores vigorously patrolled and suggests a revived wartime Home Guard may very well be deployed.

The report additionally recommends that no purposes for asylum or visas of any variety ought to be entertained from anybody already on British soil.

Mr Arnheim, a someday fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge, mentioned that human rights legal guidelines are failing to take account of the rights of different residents when claims are made.

He mentioned the “influx of huge numbers” of unlawful migrants has a “negative impact” on the human rights of the mass of law-abiding residents by placing strain on housing, healthcare, faculties and public funds.

The impartial report warned bogus asylum seekers “clog up” the courts with “endless” appeals on the taxpayers’ expense.

It raises considerations over the way in which eco-zealots and different activists are handled by the courts, suggesting the “main problem” is that the courts are likely to view disruptive protests from the perspective of the protestors’ rights slightly than from the perspective of most people.

The impression placing employees have by denying hundreds of individuals their rights to healthcare, journey in addition to harming the general public funds can also be raised.

Mr Arnheim wrote: “It is important to realise that human rights law is about everybody’s human rights – the human rights of the mass of law-abiding citizens – and not just the rights of the small minority of special interest groups championed by the self-styled ‘human rights’ lobby.”

He added: “The ‘human rights’ lobby claim to be advocates of ‘the Rule of law’, but this usually amounts in practice to the rule of lawyers or judges.”

Mr Arnheim insists the federal government has the ability to overturn judgements, together with these made by the Supreme Court.

He factors to a 2017 ruling “any judicial decision can be revoked by Parliament” by means of a statute and says it’s the “nuclear weapon in Parliament’s arsenal”.

“It also does not depend on the judicial decision in question being ‘wrong’ in any sense,” he provides.

Senior Conservative Danny Kruger, under, mentioned activists and attorneys “who are bent on dismantling” British traditions have been “empowered” by the rights tradition.

He mentioned the continued membership of the European Convention on Human Rights “at odds” with the Brexit vote to take again management.

Writing in the Daily Express, he mentioned: “If we are to win power again, my party needs to recognise we made a mistake in 2010 by continuing on the path set by Tony Blair.

“We need a new framework that will defend individual rights and liberties, including those of refugees, that is founded on the essential principles of national sovereignty and Parliamentary democracy.”

Tory MP David Jones mentioned some judgments of the ECHR are usually not binding on UK courts however they nonetheless observe them.

He added: “The points the report makes are absolutely correct but it will take legislation to put the issue right because domestic courts will tend to gold-plate the judgments of the ECHR.”

Mr Jones mentioned that he hoped no courtroom would “act politically” however had a “strong suspicion” that there’s an “increasingly liberal tendency within the bench that has that effect”.

“It is a matter of some frustration that the will of parliament can be frustrated by the courts.”

It comes because the variety of migrants intercepted crossing the English Channel to date this yr has reached greater than 22,000, in line with official figures.

Some 161 individuals have been rescued in three dinghies at sea earlier than being introduced into the harbour on the Port of Dover in Kent on Thursday.

And on Wednesday 238 individuals have been picked up by Border Force vessels in 4 incidents.

But dozens extra migrants continued to reach on Friday, together with households with younger kids.

They have been introduced into the port on Border Force vessels together with the catamaran Typhoon in flat calm circumstances at sea as individuals smugglers make the most of heatwave circumstances and low winds.

The official whole to date this yr now stands at 22,079 in 452 boats in line with the Home Office.

Nearly 2,000 individuals have arrived within the first week of September alone – with 1,978 in 35 boats being rescued mid-Channel – a median of 56 individuals crammed in every craft.