University of Oxford's Bonavero Institute details how misleading media coverage is contributing to increased calls for UK to leave the ECHR
A significant new report published last week by the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights at the University of Oxford's Faculty of Law has found widespread misrepresentations in UK media coverage of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its role in immigration control.
You can download the 36-page report here. It was authored by Victoria Adelmant and Professor Başak Çalı of the Bonavero Institute, and Professor Alice Donald of Middlesex University.
The academic study, which systematically reviewed 379 media reports between January and June 2025, revealed that over 75% of articles mentioning the ECHR focused on immigration, with particular attention to deportation cases involving foreign national offenders. Much of the coverage of the ECHR and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was found to be inaccurate or incomplete, presenting a misleading picture of human rights law being used to thwart the Government's attempts to control immigration.
The authors stated: "We found that, when subjected to rigorous analysis, fact-checking, and scrutiny of claims made about legal frameworks and cases, many news reports and opinion pieces about immigration and the ECHR or the ECtHR were misleading and based on misconceptions, often mischaracterising UK immigration law, the UK's appeals system, and the role played by the ECHR and ECtHR."
As the report warns, such misreporting can foster public misunderstanding of human rights and erode confidence in the judiciary, even placing judges at personal risk. Lady Chief Justice Carr has warned that "unfair or sensational negative reporting creates real, everyday risks to the safety and lives of judges and their families." The Bonavero Institute notes that misleading portrayals of the ECHR's role in tribunal cases are contributing to increased calls for the UK to leave the Convention, despite judges making decisions according to rules and exceptions set by Parliament.
One widely reported case cited as an example is the claim that an Albanian man avoided deportation under Article 8 of the Convention (the right to private and family life) because his child disliked foreign chicken nuggets. As the report clarifies, this was not the reason for the First-tier Tribunal's original decision, and importantly, the Upper Tribunal had already overturned the ruling by the time it was widely reported in the media. Researchers found that this case was one of many in which news articles reported on First-tier Tribunal decisions that had already been overturned on appeal, without clarifying that the original ruling no longer stood at the time of publication.
Media outlets have also misrepresented the arguments made by appellants or their lawyers in deportation cases, presenting them as if they were the basis of the Tribunal's decision. While appellants are entitled to submit any arguments they believe may support their case, not all are accepted as legally valid. In many instances, media coverage continued to report human rights claims even after tribunals had rejected them, creating the impression that the ECHR was blocking deportations and undermining immigration control.
The report further highlights a pattern of misleading media coverage in immigration tribunal cases, in which specific details are presented as decisive when they were not central to the decision. One high-profile example involved a Palestinian man who, having become a British citizen, sought to bring his brother, sister-in-law, and their children from Gaza to the UK in January 2024. The family applied using the Ukraine Family Scheme form because no other form applied and Home Office guidance advises using the closest-matching route. Their initial application was rejected, and their appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was unsuccessful. In January 2025, however, the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the rejection violated Article 8 of the ECHR. The Upper Tribunal concluded that the family faced extreme risks in Gaza, including indiscriminate violence and political persecution, which constituted "very compelling or exceptional circumstances" outweighing public interest.
Despite this, media reports frequently misrepresented the case as if the decision allowed settlement under the Ukraine Family Scheme. Lady Chief Justice Carr later condemned such reporting, noting that "it is dangerous to make any criticism of a judgment without a full understanding of the facts and the law. The judgment is the only accurate source of information." The Bonavero Institute notes that this is not an isolated occurrence, as minor or irrelevant details from tribunal cases - such as the 'chicken nuggets' example or the 'pet cat' case cited by Theresa May in 2011 - have repeatedly been misreported as decisive, shaping public perception in ways that do not reflect the legal reasoning applied
The Bonavero Institute stresses that deportations can generally only be prevented under the ECHR on two limited circumstances: if an individual faces a real risk of torture, inhuman treatment, or death abroad (Articles 2 and 3), or if removal would cause "unduly harsh" consequences for family life (Article 8), and even then only within the framework set by UK parliamentary law.
Statistical evidence suggests that successful appeals are rare. Home Office data up to June 2021 showed that just 0.73% of foreign national offenders successfully appealed deportation solely on human rights grounds. Overall, around 3.5% of human rights-based appeals were allowed, with those based only on family life making up about 2.5%. The Bonavero Institute further highlighted that judgments against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights are very infrequent. Since 1980, only 13 cases have found that a UK deportation or extradition would violate the Convention, with just four concerning family life. In the past 45 years, the Court has ruled against the UK's immigration rules only three times, in cases involving discrimination.
The report notes that this picture is obscured by the lack of clear and accessible government data on human rights-based appeals. Misreporting of tribunal cases is exacerbated by the absence of comprehensive statistics, which undermines informed public debate. To address this, the report recommends that the Home Office systematically collect and publish figures on the outcomes of appeals to the First-tier and Upper Tribunals, supporting evidence-based policy-making and strengthening public confidence in the immigration system.
Professor Alice Donald commented: "Our findings show that much of the public discussion about the ECHR and immigration is not grounded in accurate reporting. For a debate of such importance, it is essential that arguments are based on evidence and a correct understanding of the law. Without this, public trust in the rule of law is placed at risk."