Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Catherine Briddick has been quoted extensively in a new Times article about the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Refugee Convention.

The article explores proposals by the UK’s opposition Conservative Party and Reform UK to withdraw from the ECHR, which is putting pressure for reform on the ruling Labour government.

Dr Briddick provided an explanation of how the two conventions define a refugee. She also clarified how withdrawal from the ECHR would impact on the operation of the Refugee Convention in the UK, explaining that withdrawal from the ECHR would deprive individuals of an international mechanism for defending the rights as set out in the Refugee Convention.

"The difference, and the potential problem, would be this lack of a mechanism for an individual to rely on”, she said. “So the substance of the UK's legal obligations to refugees would not change, but the mechanisms that an individual could resort to, if they said, 'Yes, I am at risk of torture', or, 'Yes, I need protection from persecution', would alter."

She also explained that neither convention prevents the UK from deporting migrants.

"A significant proportion of refugee and protection claims are successful. In these cases, people who are at risk of torture or other serious rights abuses are able to rebuild their lives in and contribute to the UK. If, however, someone makes an application and they're not found to have a human rights claim or international protection need, they can be returned."

Read the article.