A new report from the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, based in Oxford University’s Faculty of Law, examined how the ECHR is represented in the UK media by analysing 379 news stories and opinion pieces published in the first six months of 2025.

Three-quarters of articles centred on immigration and deportations, and were found to frequently misreport immigration tribunal cases and mischaracterise the UK’s system of immigration appeals and the role played by the ECHR in this context.

The report 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 Alice Donald of Middlesex University London, co-author of the report, 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.”

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 per cent 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 per cent of the total number of deportations — and around 2.5 per cent when looking at appeals based solely on private and family life grounds.

These figures may be overestimates, the researchers add, as they do not account for cases subsequently overturned by the Upper Tribunal.

Co-author Victoria Adelmant, a doctoral researcher at the University of Oxford and resident at the Bonavero Institute, 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 highlights how UK legislation already heavily restricts the ability to contest deportation on the basis of the right to protection of private and family life, despite widespread reporting focused on Article 8 ECHR.

It 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.

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.

Co-author Professor Başak Çalı of the Bonavero Institute 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.”