The lessons of shaggy dogs and Catgate

5 October 2011 by

Updated x 2 | What can we learn from yesterday’s gaff by the Home Secretary Theresa May involving Maya the cat?

First, when referring to a legal judgment in a speech make sure you get the outcome right. Particularly when prefaced by “I am not making this up”. Secondly, if said speech is being broadcast live, there are plenty of lawyers on Twitter who will enjoy nothing more than tracking down the judgment, reading it and exposing the fact that you have got it wrong.

These lessons are important. But they relate to any amusing but forgettable political gaff. There is, however, a third lesson. There has been for a number of years a trend of wilfully or recklessly misreporting human rights cases. This trend is not just mischievous; it threatens to do real damage to our legal system.

At a seminar last night on human rights in Europe, the pre-eminent human rights lawyer Lord Pannick said that Theresa May’s cat case “turned out to be a shaggy dog story“. I have been blogging about human rights for 18 months and I have spotted a number of similar shaggy dog stories. They have common themes and include a tabloid friendly nugget of truth; prisoners being given KFC meals whilst rioting; prisoners being driven 200 yards despite wanting to walk; a man avoiding deportation because he has a cat.

But another common theme is that the shaggy dog stories get the law wrong. And once released into the wild, these mini-libels have taken on lives of their own.

Maya the cat is a good example. The original judgment was in 2008. For some reason it was then misreported by the press in 2009. Despite being scotched by the judiciary’s press office, the story was repeated a few weeks ago in the Sunday Telegraph as another example of human rights gone wrong, albeit with the qualifier that the deportation was avoided “partly” because of the cat (which is still wrong). It was then picked up by the Home Secretary for her party conference speech. The rest is history.

Why do the shaggy dogs keep rearing their heads? Lord Neuberger got it right when he identified two different tendencies at work:

The first is simply outright misreporting. The story said one thing, when the truth was the opposite. The second is a more subtle form of misreporting: the Human Rights Act is brought in to take the blame for a decision to which in might have played a part – and the part the critics suggested it did play, but which in truth it did not.

The Home Secretary got it wrong yesterday. Put it this way. If I had a client who was facing deportation and I wanted to show that the simple fact that he had a cat meant that he should stay, and I tried to use the Bolivian cat judgment as a precedent, I would be laughed out of court.

Often judgments really do mean one thing – law students will know this is called the ratio decidendiand no amount of clever arguments can make them mean something else (believe me, I’ve tried).

When lawyers and judges complain about misreporting it can sometimes sound like they are focussing on legal pedantry at the expense of principle. Some would say, as indeed Theresa May did following the speech, that cases are open to many interpretations.

But it goes further than that. For a number of years, newspapers and senior politicians have simply got the law wrong. For example, I have repeatedly pointed out on this blog out that Learco Chindamo, Philip Lawrence’s killer, was not deported because of human rights. Lord Neuberger publicly agreed.

So why is that example still wheeled out as an example of human rights preventing the deportation of foreign criminals? Legal writer Joshua Rozenberg has told Legal Week that many national newspapers no longer have a designated legal correspondent, meaning that they “don’t provide the service they did“. But a journalist does not need to be legally trained to check their facts.

It is no surprise that the Justice Secretary and former barrister Ken Clarke immediately smelled a rat. He is not a lefty criminal-loving human rights lover as he is sometimes painted; he is a lawyer who knows that the perception of human rights law in the wider population does not match the reality in the courts. The crucial thing which Clarke also knows is that before deciding on a policy which will affect the whole country, it is a politician’s duty to get the basic facts right.

The issue which the Home Secretary was trying to highlight was human rights getting in the way of deportation decisions. This is a genuine and difficult issue. Blogger Anna Raccoon suggests that May could have picked any number of better examples, such as

the case of a Mr Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali… sentenced to nine years for helping the 21/7 bombers who killed more than fifty innocent people and maimed and seriously injured many more, but he can’t be deported because he might face “inhuman treatment” in his native Eritrea

But the reforms the Home Secretary is proposing are not about Article 3, the protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, but Article 8, the right to private and family life. The Home Secretary should not just be asking why her speechwriter used a poor example, but the more important question of whether the evidence she is using to set the policy agenda is reliable.

The worrying alternative is that policy is being decided on the basis of tabloid scare stories, feral think tanks and misplaced public anger. In reality, as Francis Fitzgibbon QC has blogged, many decisions about family life relate to difficult issues surrounding the children of potential deportees, not made-up families or cats.

Another inference which could be drawn from the preponderance of shaggy cats and dogs in human rights reporting is that, simply, there are not enough memorable examples of judges making farcical decisions to support the view that they must be reigned in.

Last week the Prime Minister referred to the “chilling culture” of the Human Rights Act, citing an example of a prison van being driven nearly 100 miles to be used to transport a prisoner 200 yards “when he was perfectly happy to walk“. As Liberty has pointed out, this example is pretty unconvincing. Moreover, since when has public or private authority’s misinterpretation of the law been a justification for changing it?

Those are the worrying lessons of Maya the cat. In a recent speech the Prime Minister bemoaned the “twisting and misrepresenting of human rights”. He was referring to the August riots and used his speech to blame human rights culture for the moral degradation of our country. But the twisting and misrepresentation is actually occurring closer to the Prime Minister’s door.

At present there is little danger that human rights will be removed altogether from UK law. But after the next election, anything could happen. It is time to put aside the cats and shaggy dogs and concentrate on the real evidence.

Update, 6 October 2011 – Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has come out in strong terms against the Home Secretary’s use of the cat example. Speaking to the Nottingham Post (as reported by, he said:

I sat and listened to Theresa’s speech, and I’ll have to be very polite to Theresa when I meet her – but in my opinion she should really address her researchers and advisers very severely for assuring her that a complete nonsense example in her speech was true.

I’m not going to stand there and say in my private opinion this is a terrible thing and we ought to get rid of the Human Rights Act.

It’s not only the judges that all get furious when the home secretary makes a parody of a court judgement – our commission who are helping us form our view on this are not going to be entertained by laughable, child-like examples being given.

We have a policy and, in my old-fashioned way, when you serve in a government you express a collective policy of the government – you don’t go round telling everyone your personal opinion is different.

Update no. 2: This is a fast-moving story. Ken Clarke has now expressed “regret” about the “colourful language” he used.The Independent reports he has made a statement saying:

I do rather regret the colourful language I used at one point in my interview. This is old news from an interview I gave during the Conservative Party Conference. I consider this issue closed. The Prime Minister has made the position clear, and I fully support it. There is a problem with deporting foreign prisoners, which I have always agreed with Theresa needs to be addressed. The Government’s Commission on a Bill of Rights is under way. I do rather regret the colourful language I used at one point in my interview.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. Oliver Lotwin says:–protect-human-rights.html

    It’s a 3 yr old non story , having worked as a Contractor for The Court Service , it’s misleading & disingenuous on so many levels .

    Basically it’s all about risk assessment and covering yourself in case anything went wrong . It was an error by The Court Service in the first place . Had they done their job properly the Prisoner would have been either driven through electric gates or through thick iron doors at the rear or side of the Court , then kept in a secure holding area in the Court Basement thence taken upstairs to the dock when required .

    The Golden Rule is you don’t say anything critical of the Court Service or upset them or their staff in any way whatsoever ….as that could lose your private firm the contract . The Security Industry is a True Blue cut throat one .

    The HRA non issue is a way round things if you will .

    Also you could argue that you’re not paid enough to get jumped in the street by the prisoner , his friends or enemies however short the journey .

  2. Nice and clear for a non legal – compliments (but you rein someone in, think horses rather than regals, if you can spot the difference!)

  3. Jim says:

    The real moral of the story are the under trained or some what over zealous officers in the home office and the ukba who invent their own policies and that is why ever since its creation it has been rocked continuously and yet the ministers go on listening to advise of incompetent or biased officials who are primarily at fault and have a complete disregard for human rights

  4. ObiterJ says:

    Good post with entirely valid comment about misreporting – downright distortion – of the truth. Unfortunately, the cheap headline does the damage to many a serious argument. Such damage is then very hard to correct.

  5. Rob Ward says:

    The press and certain parts of the government have a agenda to make sure all Human Rights cases are portrayed in the worst light, the real worry and people to fear are those that wish to take away our human rights and replace it with a British bill of rights which will without doubt heavily favor the government who is in power at the time and not the people of the UK.

  6. This a a government that promised a freedom bill and to “roll back” the destruction of citizens liberties only to impose even more totalitarian laws.

    A handful of suspected terrorists were helped with a modified control Order but the Draconian and manifestly unjust pre-charge Proceeds of Crime Restraint order effecting thousands of suffering citizens remained untouched.

    The cat story is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public so that this Government, like the last, can remove even more Human Rights from the British People. Thank God for the Temple and the Judges.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: