The Conservative Party has announced plans for a sweeping overhaul of the UK’s immigration appeals system, including withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and abolishing immigration tribunals.
In a speech due to be delivered at the think tank Policy Exchange, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp is expected to argue that judges have gained excessive influence over immigration decisions and that control should be returned to Parliament and elected ministers.
Under the proposals, immigration decisions would be made by the Home Office, with migrants able to access a rapid internal appeals process. Judicial involvement would be significantly reduced, with legal challenges only permitted in limited circumstances where the Government is alleged to have acted outside its statutory powers.
Mr Philp is expected to say that decades of case law, particularly decisions linked to the ECHR, have made it increasingly difficult to deport illegal migrants and foreign criminals.
He is set to argue that immigration judges have been able to shape policy through their interpretation of human rights legislation, creating outcomes that many members of the public view as inconsistent with common sense.
As part of his speech, Mr Philp is expected to highlight a number of controversial tribunal decisions. These include cases involving foreign offenders who successfully challenged deportation orders on grounds linked to mental health concerns, family life provisions and conditions in their home countries.
Among the examples cited is a Ghanaian criminal who was allowed to return to Britain after arguing that his mental health had deteriorated following deportation. Another involved a Nigerian armed robber who successfully appealed removal on the basis that he would face difficulties accessing mental healthcare in Nigeria. Mr Philp also points to a case involving an Albanian burglar with dozens of convictions who was permitted to remain in the UK.
The Conservatives argue that such rulings demonstrate how the current system can produce outcomes that undermine public confidence in immigration enforcement.
The party estimates that abolishing immigration tribunals would remove around 98 per cent of immigration-related cases from the courts.
Alongside tribunal reform, the Conservatives say they would repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Philp is expected to reject claims that leaving the ECHR would isolate Britain internationally, arguing that countries such as United States, Canada and Australia cooperate on migration and security matters despite not being signatories to the convention.
The proposals would also prevent migrants who arrive in the UK illegally from claiming asylum. The Conservatives say this could be achieved through domestic legislation once the constraints of the ECHR and Human Rights Act are removed.
Mr Philp argues that the current system has contributed to growing public frustration over illegal migration and deportation delays. He has claimed that large numbers of failed asylum seekers remain in Britain despite having exhausted their claims, while thousands of foreign criminals who are legally liable for deportation continue to live in the UK.
The plans represent one of the most significant immigration policy shifts proposed by the Conservatives since entering opposition following the 2024 General Election.
The announcement also comes amid growing competition on immigration policy from Reform UK, which has proposed legislation that would permanently bar anyone entering Britain illegally from claiming asylum and significantly limit appeal rights.
Meanwhile, the Labour Government is pursuing its own reforms. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood is developing proposals to streamline the immigration appeals process through a new single appeals body and introduce tighter restrictions on the use of Article 8 rights, which protect family life.
The debate is likely to intensify in the months ahead, with immigration continuing to rank among the most important issues for many voters and political parties increasingly divided over the role of the courts, human rights law and Parliament in determining who has the right to remain in the United Kingdom.
