Right to a Family Life?

Surely there are some situations where the disgraceful actions of an individual cancel out their codified right to a ‘family life’. In my opinion a convicted sex attacker with “a high risk of reoffending” has surrendered his rights.

 Not according to Sir Henry Hodge. The Home Office’s request for the deportation of serial sex offender Mohammed Kendeh to his native Sierra Leone has been denied.

 Why? Because The Human Rights Act.

 The UK ratified Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights when The Human Rights Act was passed into UK law in 1998. Article 8 offers general protection for a person’s private and family life, home and correspondence from arbitrary interference by the State.

 It is this right to family life that allowed the country’s most senior immigration judge, Sir Henry Hodge to deny the Home Office’s requested deportation of Mohammed Kendeh back to Sierra Leone.

 I am by no means trying to negate or dismiss the importance of the Human Rights Act. It is an integral part UK’s unwritten constitution and since 1998 has provided unprecedented continuity for Europe in the area of Human Rights.

 No one would dare claim that we do not have a right to life, the right to freedom of religion, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained. But it seems that sometimes we get so caught up in the wording and political requirements to meet the obligations set out in the European Union Convention of Human Rights that we forget the victim.  Every right and civil liberty laid down in the Act must be qualified by the interests of public safety and the protection of the rights of others.

 In the case of a serial sex offender deemed to “have a high risk of reoffending” we all come under the umbrella of “others”. It seems that this sex offender’s right to a family life can somehow supercede our individual rights and protection.

 In my opinion, any person who commits a crime of this nature has surrendered their rights to a peaceful and happy family life. His actions have had an acutely detrimental affect on the family lives of his victims. How can he now stand up and declare he is entitled to the exact thing he has deprived others of?

 Of course the convicted man still has some universal human rights laid down by the UN. He has the right to life and this is why the death penalty cannot be invoked. But the somewhat more menial rights in relation to his day-to-day dealings should no longer take priority over the safety and protection of other innocent people.

This judgment seems absurd, and is bound to provoke a confused if not furious reaction from much of the public.

 His life in Sierra Leone may be void of the contact with family that he presently has in the UK, but maybe he should have thought about that before he indecently assaulted eleven women and turned their lives upside down.