David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

RSS

Theresa May gets it wrong about a cat

The Home Secretary's conference speech shows she does not know what her own department is doing.

By David Allen Green Published 04 October 2011 15:14

Today the Home Secretary got her facts wrong about a cat.

Speaking to the Conservative Party conference, Theresa May said:

We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter - for whom he pays no maintenance - lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because - and I am not making this up - he had a pet cat.

This story - one of a number of myths which those hostile to human rights law invoke without ever bothering to actually check - has been published before in newspapers, and it has already been dealt with by respected critical sites such as Full Fact and Tabloid Watch. All this was available to her speechwriters.

But what makes it worse is what was also known to her very own department.

The full determination of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal is here [PDF]. As Barry O'Leary, Partner at Wesley Gryk Solicitors, who acted for the foreign national, explains:

This case was not decided on the basis of a cat. It was decided on the basis of a Home Office policy which the Home Office themselves had failed to apply. This was accepted by the Home Office before the Immigration Judge and the Home Office agreed the appeal should be allowed. The ownership of a cat was immaterial. Any press reports to the contrary are, unfortunately, not based on fact.

The case involved a foreign national in a long term committed relationship with a British Citizen (they had been living together for four years at the time of the appeal.) He was not a foreign national prisoner.

I had made an application on the foreign national's behalf for the right to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of a Home Office policy known as DP3/96.

The application was refused [by the Home Secretary] and my client appealed against that decision.

As part of the application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the United Kingdom to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship. One detail provided, amongst many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.

The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together.

The [Home Secretary] asked for the decision to be reconsidered. They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat.

The [Home Secretary] was given permission to put the arguments to the tribunal and the decision of the tribunal is that of [Senior Immigration Judge] Gleeson.

It was decided by [Senior Immigration Judge] Gleeson that the first judge's decision was correct. As is clear from the determination, she came to this decision because the [Home Secretary] in refusing the application had not applied their own policy DP3/96 (which had been withdrawn but the transitional provisions should have been applied to my client).

It was made clear by the initial judge and then by [Senior Immigration Judge] Gleeson that the Appellant should benefit from that policy and be granted the right to remain.

Furthermore, it was accepted by the Home Office representative at the hearing before [Senior Immigration Judge] Gleeson that the policy should apply and any other errors in the initial decision by the judge (including too much detail on the cat) were immaterial.

See paragraph 6 of the determination. It makes clear that it is the former policy DP3/96 which is the basis on which the appeal was won.

[Senior Immigration Judge] Gleeson does go on to make a joke about the cat, clearly because she recognized that the discussion of the cat was irrelevant to the serious issue of applying Home Office policies correctly.

This case was won because the Home Office had a policy which they did not initially apply but later, through their representative, they accepted should have been applied.

What this means is that not only was the cat immaterial to the tribunal decision for the foreign citizen to remain, but that the Home Secretary's own representative fully accepted that the cat was immaterial to the decision.

So the Home Secretary in making her speech today not only got the facts of the case wrong, she also said something known by her own department to be untrue.

And I am not making this up.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

Tags: human rights

More from David Allen Green

View the discussion thread.

31 comments

Sun, 2012-06-10 18:49 — Palo Alto Mom (not verified)

Party conference speeches are (should be) prepared by the party political team, not by civil servants. Civil servants might be asked to provide factual information - as they would provide factual information on anything at any time to their minister - but wouldn't be involved in putting it into a speech.

Thu, 2011-10-06 13:05 — Rob Carter (not verified)

If Ken Clarke is going to "Bitch-Slap" May, could someone please post it on YouTube, or even better a DVD, that way I could watch it in slow motion, time and time again.

Wed, 2011-10-05 14:18 — Robin Levett (not verified)

Just to sum up; TM told the story of an illegal immigrant who couldn't, under the HRA, be deported because of his cat.

In fact: firstly, the case wasn't about an illegal immigrant but an overstayer. Secondly, the decision was based entirely upon HO policy, not the HRA. Thirdly, the cat was irrelevant.

Does she get a half-mark for the fact that there was a case, albeit she got everything wrong about it.

Wed, 2011-10-12 09:57 — Bill (not verified)

I agree with Awake!. Man made laws that fly in the face of logic is the problem. The law might be based in logic, but it soon gets so tied up in it's own machinations that it becomes an ass. If there was any real logic to laws then they would be the same everywhere. This class of people will tell you that the law is based on precedence rather than logic; but where would we be if science was based on precedence. Well as a matter of fact for centuries it was based on precedence when the church insisted on its incorrect view of the world.
It seems to me that the laws of all countries are in their own dark ages, and like bureaucracy, are almost an anti-science that does not allow simple logical corrections. After all how much good do laws do when they are ineffective at looking at the crimes of the mortgage brokers and banks etc.
More often than not laws are just silly little rules made up to keep these people in business. Don't let them fool you, they may have fast minds and good memories, but then so has my Yorkshire terrier. When it comes to the big picture, paradoxically, they simply don't see it. No wonder the law is such a lottery and UK politics is such a mess.

Tue, 2011-10-04 15:26 — swatantra

What makes it worse is that Theresa knew full well that the 'cat' was immaterial but decided to go for the cheap soundbite. Disgraceful. I changed my views on her completely.
Theresa has decided to go down the hard rightwing route, tough on immigrants, tough on HR, and tough on cats.

Tue, 2011-10-04 15:28 — Bodmass (not verified)

Are conference speeches prepared by Govt civil servants or by Conservative political workers?

Sat, 2011-10-22 11:11 — Robin Levett (not verified)

@P'd off:

"Yet another ugly criminal that needs to see a jail cell."

That's a bit harsh; she may have lied both ways to Christmas about the case, but that isn't (yet) criminal.

Thu, 2011-10-13 14:25 — dmhuk2001

T. May is a sometimes distracting/annoying white noise and a barely visible irrelevance as a minister. It is a wonder how she has made it this far. The 'peter principle' appears to have applied here. I've no idea what she is like as an MP, but as a minister she rates as 'good do better'. Perhaps an upaid apprenticeship would be of benefit?

Wed, 2011-10-05 16:31 — Andrew (not verified)

What is an "illegal immigrant"? It seems that the person involved in this case was a Bolivian student who stayed in the UK longer than they were permitted. Does a person who comes to the UK legally, with temporary permission to stay in the UK, become an illegal immigrant when they remain in the UK for too long?

It seems clear from the report of the appeal that the first instance decision was made on the basis of the Human Rights Act. On appeal, it seems that the judge pointed out a stronger basis for reaching that decision - the Home Office's own guidance, which says that a person should not be removed from the UK if they have been in a committed relationship with a UK resident for more than two years. The cat had little role to play in either decision.

Tue, 2011-10-04 15:47 — L A Odicean (not verified)

If she believed the story, she is too stupid to be any kind of secretary, let alone the Home one. If she knew it to be untrue she should resign.

Tue, 2011-10-04 15:48 — Carl Gardner (not verified)

Not by civil servants. Conference speeches are political, not ministerial. I think this explains the boo-boo. No annoying Sir Humphreys telling the minister the case was more complex, on mature consideration, than first appeared.

Tue, 2011-10-04 15:51 — Anton Jury (not verified)

Prevarication, lies, deceit and hypocricy ! You could not have expected anything else from Conservative Party Conference that is really a Monkey's Tea Party for Pathological Liars.

Putting the cat business aside the policy regarding throwing immigrants out that have run away from justice or been convicted of a crime I fully agree with.

What she(Theresa May)did not mention was their old buddy the conservative supporter Asil Nadir from the Polypec Empire that has returned to England after about twenty years on the run from British justice to evade fraud but now wants to clear his name because he believes that now a Conservative Government is in power he will be able to get justice and clear his name.

Why not just deport him and save the tax payers the cost of an expensive trial. If he found fit to go on the run with all those millions for so many years send him back and let him remain there, where ever it was. No, they just let the undesirable in and give him bail to face an expensive trial at the tax payers expense.

Hypocrites the lot of them. One rule/law for them and another for the rest of society.

Wed, 2011-10-05 17:25 — Tim (not verified)

Qn: Why aren't we allowed to know the cat's name?

Ans: Probably due to a feline right to privacy.

Tue, 2011-10-04 16:31 — Nick Sutton (not verified)

Listen to Theresa May on The World at One here: http://t.co/8qus1eCu

Sat, 2011-10-08 05:24 — matthew fox (not verified)

The cat's right to privacy is enshrined in the human rights act.

Guido Fawkes was able to confirm this because some bloke in a pub told him so, sorry I mean't sources close to No10.

Tue, 2011-10-04 16:51 — Nelson Jones1

One thing that troubles me is that, in the judgement, the name of the cat is replaced by empty brackets. Why aren't we allowed to know the cat's name?

Tue, 2011-10-04 17:07 — Old-skool civil servant (not verified)

@Bodmass Guidelines are sent round the real civil service before party conference season.

We are not supposed to be involved in speech-writing that could be considered party political. (It's a breach of the Civil Service Code.)

The Tories have brought in their own, who now are quoted in the press as "a spokesman for the DCLG" (Pickles is the worst). Thy are not civil servants; they are Tory functionaries.

We hate them.

Tue, 2011-10-04 17:26 — foowzkaa

@ Nelson

I suspect that was what us humans call a "joke".

You may have them on planet Vulcan too...

;-)

Wed, 2011-10-05 19:37 — Lady J (not verified)

Guys

Please remember the following rule.

Conservatives and Republicans do not based their world views and ideology on Thruts.
They are experts at repeating a lie until they convince us it is the truth. Remember Labour, more to the falsity, Gordon Brown caused the recession.

Mon, 2011-10-10 10:30 — Awake!

fact uis though that in his summing up the judge used the cat... that is on record, and it contributed to the guy satying- the judge actually Said this.
I think NS is missing a much more intersting story. In the last 5 years we've seen how disfunctional the institutions that govern our society really are. Problem is that there does indeed need to be somne sort of revolution for mankind to make it's next evolutionary step, i'd be posting on right websites more if the right had a real mechanism for revolution, so have to rely on left, but they stuck in nonsense marxian wealth based revolution blalh blah blah.
We've seen darkness in mp scandals, media, police, political shenanigans..
and now, we get a judge who in summing up mentions the cat when considering the defendants life in the UK(HIS WORDS, THE ACTUAL JUDGE USED THE CAT),yet an official from justice said that wasn't the case... what's going on!!!! No one has the balls to take on that last edifice though- far easier taking sheap shots at tories.
All sides of the same coin...

Tue, 2011-10-04 18:48 — Jamal Barry (not verified)

So the appeal was not won on HRA grounds but because the Home Office had failed to adhere to its own policy? If that is so, then this case provides no support to the argument that the HRA is preventing justified deportations. Moreover, even if the HRA is repealed, would the Tories not also have to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (since the HRA, in the main, just transposes into domestic law the provisions of the ECHR)? Is the latter also Tory policy? Was it not Conservative Party MP, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who chaired the committee that guided the drafting of the ECHR in any case? Tories need to learn their own history!

Tue, 2011-10-04 19:01 — Tom (iow) (not verified)

The Human Rights Act being 'accidentally' confused with the rule of law again.

Wed, 2011-10-05 21:08 — swatantra

Mya is the name of the cat.
Lloyd Webber is reviving his Musical: Theresa the Catwoman

Wed, 2011-10-19 17:39 — Pi**sed off (not verified)

Yet another ugly criminal that needs to see a jail cell.

Tue, 2011-10-04 21:26 — amie (not verified)

David Allen Green had the full facts, backed by the full judgment up here by 2.14pm. HOw is it the BBC and Kenneth Clarke were still flailing around on the 5pm radio 4 news? Where are all their respective researchers, never mind Teresa May's researchers?

Wed, 2011-10-05 23:28 — Robin Levett (not verified)

@Andrew

In fact, the original decision, by the Home Secretary, was a *refusal* to allow him to remain on HRA grounds; he had overlooked the policy so the HRA was all there was. On the initial appeal the policy was applied; on the Home Office final appeal (claiming that the policy was out of date) the decision was again on the basis of the policy, the judge deciding that it did still apply. So the only decision on the HRA was a refusal.

Sat, 2011-10-08 19:13 — Fraziel1

So you quoted the solicitorr working for the foreign national. Would they have said anything else? People are sick and tired of criminals not getting the sentences they deserve or not being deported due to the human rights act. The act is clearly being abused and we should no longer recognise it.Cat or not, he should have been deported.

Sat, 2011-10-08 20:04 — Robin Levett (not verified)

@Fraziel1:

"People are sick and tired of criminals not getting the sentences they deserve or not being deported due to the human rights act."

But the HRA wasn't a factor here; the decision was on the basis of existing Home Office policy alone (read the judgment). Does that not make you question how many times the HRA has actually been responsible for a criminal "not getting the sentence they deserve"?

BTW - deportation is neither a sentence nor a punishment.

Sat, 2011-10-08 22:56 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Kenny may have the appearance of an avuncular softy but let's not forget that the Justice Minister, with the help of Francis Maude, gave Mrs Thatcher her walking papers.
The butt of public school toffs in the cabinet of equals this former grammar school boy put the lady in her place. The Nasty Party indeed!

Equality of Opportunity

Sat, 2011-10-08 11:44 — ObiterJ (not verified)

Often, Ministers claim that "human rights" prevent the deportation of terrorists. It should be noted that the man in the catgate case was NOT a terrorist. He had leave to remain in UK but his leave expired on 30th November 2004. He then became an "overstayer." He was arrested for shoplifting on 21st February 2007 and was then given notice of removal from the UK. He had clearly established a family life . The decision by the immigration judges to allow him to remain is clearly right. The cat was incidental to the whole thing.