Whose side are the courts on?

FROM time to time, we Eurosceptics rage against some diktat from Brussels, only to find the villain of the piece is occupying an office in Whitehall, writes Peter Rhodes.

"Gold-plating," the over-interpreting of EU law by our own civil servants, is a creeping threat which now seems to be spreading to our courts.

Take those infuriating cases when foreign-born criminals, having wed and bred, are allowed to remain in Britain for the sake of their "family life" as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, according to immigration minister Damian Green, the much-despised European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is actually quite stern on this issue. It says foreign criminals should be kicked out unless there is an "insurmountable obstacle" preventing the family from leaving, too.

It is British courts which have applied the test of whether it is "reasonable to expect" a family to leave, which is not the same thing at all.

The troublesome Article 8 of the convention is currently being reviewed by the Government to make it better reflect the views of the public.

In the meantime, we humble citizens are left to mull over an old, old question.

Whose side are our courts on?