Claws out between Tory stalwarts after Clarke mocks May’s immigrant cat tale

In her keynote address to the conference, the home secretary offered several examples of cases where human rights legislation had interfered in immigration cases.

One case, she said, related to “the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – I am not making this up – he had a pet cat”.

Her claims were made during a speech calling for the human rights act to be scrapped to prevent immigrants from using “the right to family life” to block deportation.

However, within hours of delivering her well-received speech, she was openly contradicted by Justice Secretary Mr Clarke who used a fringe event to disparage her claims.

He said: “I’ve never had a conversation on the subject with Theresa, so I’d have to find out about these strange cases she is throwing out.”

He added: “I cannot believe anybody has ever had deportation refused on the basis of owning a cat. I’ll have a small bet with her that nobody has ever been refused deportation on the grounds of the ownership of a cat.”

He also acknowledged Mrs May had not consulted him about her own speech prior to giving it. “When I have found out from Theresa what these examples are that have upset her, I will probably find she agrees with me – it is these daft misinterpretations of the act which are giving the whole thing a bad reputation, when we should be a force in favour of human rights and individual liberty in the modern world,” he said.

Mrs May’s embarrassment was then compounded as the judicial communications office, which represents senior judges, insisted the tale was not true and said it had told her department as much.

On the case in point, it said that the man in question had been allowed to stay in the UK because he had an unmarried partner. “That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision – the cat had nothing to do with the decision,” a spokeswoman said.

However, a Home Office source insisted the cat had been a factor. He quoted the judge in the case who had said “the joint acquisition of Maya [the cat] by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that appellant and his partner enjoy.”

The home secretary later said she accepted the judges’ correction, but argued that she was not relying on that single case to justify her policy. Under her plans, the government will replace the Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights.

EDDIE BARNES