A new report from the University of Oxford's Bonavero Institute of Human Rights , Faculty of Law , warns that misleading media coverage is shaping public debate on immigration and human rights. The study, The European Convention on Human Rights and Immigration Control in the UK: Informing the Public Debate , reveals that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is frequently misrepresented in reporting on deportation cases involving foreign national offenders, contributing to misconceptions that risk undermining trust in the legal system.
The report finds that a large majority of ECHR-related news articles published in the UK in the first half of 2025 centred on immigration and deportation. Analysis revealed frequent misreporting of immigration tribunal cases, as well as mischaracterisations of the UK's system of immigration appeals and the role played by the ECHR in this context. The report aims to support informed public debate by identifying and addressing misconceptions.
Politicians, journalists and commentators may legitimately hold different views on immigration and human rights. But mischaracterising how the law operates does a disservice to the public. Evidence should be the foundation of any debate, whatever view one takes on the policy questions.
Professor Başak Çalı, Bonavero Institute of Human Rights
Co-written by Victoria Adelmant , a doctoral researcher at the University of Oxford and Resident at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Professor Alice Donald of Middlesex University London, and Professor Başak Çalı of the Bonavero Institute, the study involved a systematic review of media reports that mentioned the ECHR between 1 January and 30 June 2025, analysing 379 news stories and opinion pieces.
Around 75% of these media reports focused on the ECHR's role in immigration control - particularly appeals by foreign national offenders against deportation orders.
The report finds that immigration tribunal cases are frequently misreported. It highlights several high-profile examples of misleading coverage, including the so-called 'chicken nuggets' case - widely reported as the prevention of an individual's deportation on the basis of his child's dislike of foreign food, despite the decision not being based on this detail and having already been overturned. These misrepresentations, the authors argue, risk eroding public confidence in the legal system and are fuelling calls to leave the ECHR based on misleading portrayals of the role and operation of the ECHR in the UK.
Professor Donald said: '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.'
Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in only 13 removal cases, and just four of those concerned family life. In relation to immigration rules more broadly, the Court has only three times ruled that the UK's immigration rules violate the ECHR in the past 45 years. Suggestions that the European Court of Human Rights 'hinders' the UK's efforts to control immigration, the authors note, do not stand up to scrutiny.
Despite political and media focus on cases involving foreign national offenders, the report highlights that successful human rights-based appeals against deportation are rare. The latest available Home Office data on human rights-based appeals against deportation shows that in the 15 months to June 2021, the number of successful appeals amounted to only 0.73% of the total number of sentenced foreign national offenders.
Over a five-year period to June 2021, the number of successful human rights-based deportation appeals represented about 3.5% of the total number of deportations - and around 2.5% when looking at appeals based solely on private and family life grounds. These figures may be overestimates as they do not account for cases subsequently overturned by the Upper Tribunal.
Victoria Adelmant, Resident at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, said: 'The absence of systematically published Home Office data on human rights-based appeals against deportation makes it difficult to have a fully informed discussion on this topic. The Home Office has itself recently stated that its data surrounding foreign national offenders is not sufficiently robust. More regular and accessible publication of statistics and disaggregated information would enable more evidence-based public debate.'
The report clarifies that the ECHR does not grant non-citizens a right to live in the UK, and that states are free to set their own immigration policies. In deportation cases, two provisions of the Convention are typically invoked: Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman treatment) or Article 8 (protection of private and family life).
The report shows that reliance on Article 8 in appeals against deportation gained significant attention in media coverage in the first half of 2025. But the possibility of claiming the right to protection of private and family life to prevent deportation is heavily restricted by legislation passed by Parliament. Under UK immigration law, deportation orders are mandatory for foreign national offenders sentenced to 12 months or more in prison, and exceptions apply only in very limited circumstances.
The report also demonstrates that judgments by the European Court of Human Rights against the UK are very rare, and that the Court has only rarely held that the UK government has violated human rights in its immigration-related decisions and policies.
Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in only 13 removal cases, and just four of those concerned family life. In relation to immigration rules more broadly, the Court has only three times ruled that the UK's immigration rules violate the ECHR in the past 45 years.
Suggestions that the European Court of Human Rights 'hinders' the UK's efforts to control immigration, the authors note, do not stand up to scrutiny.
Suggestions that the European Court of Human Rights 'hinders' the UK's efforts to control immigration, the authors note, do not stand up to scrutiny.
The report warns that misconceptions about tribunal cases, the UK's appeals system and the ECHR have real consequences: sensational coverage can fuel hostility towards migrants and human rights law, and, as senior judges have noted, can even put the safety of members of the judiciary at risk. The authors argue that responsible reporting, combined with better data, is vital for sustaining democratic debate on immigration policy.
Professor Çalı said: 'Politicians, journalists and commentators may legitimately hold different views on immigration and human rights. But mischaracterising how the law operates does a disservice to the public. Evidence should be the foundation of any debate, whatever view one takes on the policy questions. This report is intended as a resource to support informed and balanced discussion.'
The Bonavero Institute's report concludes that proposals by some commentators and politicians to curtail the UK's participation in the ECHR are being made on the basis of misconceptions rather than a clear picture of how the law is applied in practice.
The Bonavero Institute's report concludes that proposals by some commentators and politicians to curtail the UK's participation in the ECHR are being made on the basis of misconceptions rather than a clear picture of how the law is applied in practice.
While debate about immigration and human rights will inevitably involve political judgment, the authors stress that it must be conducted on the basis of accurate facts.
The report, The European Convention on Human Rights and Immigration Control in the UK: Informing the Public Debate , by Victoria Adelmant (University of Oxford), Professor Alice Donald (Middlesex University London), and Professor Başak Çalı (University of Oxford), and edited by Dr Joelle Grogan (UCD Sutherland School of Law) and Professor Philip Leach (Middlesex University London), is available to read in full here via the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights .
The Bonavero Institute, based in the University of Oxford's Faculty of Law, is dedicated to fostering world-class research and scholarship in human rights law; promoting public engagement in and understanding of human rights issues; and building valuable conversations and collaborations between human rights scholars and practitioners.
