England have been crowned Women’s Rugby World Cup champions for the third time after crushing Canada 33-13.

Two tries by Alex Matthews, plus one each from Ellie Kildunne, Amy Cokayne and Abbie Ward sealed it for the Red Roses.

England, ranked as the world number one going into the match, were ahead by 13 points by the end of the first half – as they played in front of a record-breaking home crowd of 81,885 at the Allianz Stadium in Twickenham, west London.

Canada mounted a spirited effort in the second half, but a decent spell of pressure was cut off when Matthews scored her second try of the afternoon.

A conversion took the Red Roses to 33 points, giving them a comfortable 20 point lead over the Maple Leafs.

The win marks the first time England won the Women’s Rugby World Cup in 11 years, after losing finals in 2017 and 2022.

Among the first to congratulate the Red Roses were the Prince and Princess of Wales, who also praised Canada and said: “You had an outstanding tournament. Both teams should be so proud!”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer also praised the team and said: “You have shown the very best of England and inspired a generation.”

After watching the game with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, London’s mayor Sir Sadiq Khan posted a photo of the pair while congratulating England.

“Huge congratulations to (the Red Roses) on their fantastic victory,” he said, “another proud moment for women’s rugby.”

‘Pinch me moment’

Speaking to the BBC after being named player of the match, England’s 23-year-old flanker Sadia Kabeya said: “It’s a pinch me moment. It’s been years and years in the making, I am so happy we could pull it off.

“All props to Canada they are a great side and they put up a great fight here today.”

Ward also told the broadcaster: “Honestly as soon as the whistle went I just burst into tears. It’s truly been such a special day. A sold-out crowd at Twickenham. It was electric, in front of friends, family, it’s amazing.

“The last final loss, that was then. This is a new team, this is a new chapter of women’s rugby.”

Read more from Sky News:
Prince of Wales says 2024 was ‘hardest year’ of his life
Unite threatens to break link with Labour
Nuno Espirito Santo made new West Ham head coach

Headed into the final, the Red Roses were on a 32-game winning streak and won their seventh straight Six Nations title back in April.

England also won every one of their matches in the World Cup group stages, then secured victories over Scotland and France in the quarter and semi-finals, respectively.

It also marked the second-ever Rugby World Cup final for Canada, ranked second in the world behind England.

But despite their world ranking, Canada’s women’s team had to partly fund their way to the tournament.

A crowdfunding page under the name Mission: Win Rugby World Cup 2025 raised nearly $1m (£534,000) to help cover the costs of sending the team to England.

How often do migrants successfully fight their removal from Britain on the basis of their human rights?

The clamour from the right for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights has been growing – even some high-profile Labour figures say it needs reform.

So, I’ve come to an immigration appeal court – unannounced – to find out how it is used by migrants and their lawyers here.

Decisions delayed, outcomes unpublished

I get to the fourth floor of a large court building in Birmingham.

The first case I’m ushered into to see is a 38-year-old Nigerian man. He came on a student visa – but that ran out.

Just before he did, he put in a claim to stay on the basis of his relationship with a woman, who is originally from Barbados but has lived and worked in Britain since 2015.

The judge, who will decide their fate, dials in via video link. He hears the man’s partner has a 17-year-old daughter.

She lives with her biological father, but the couple insist she is so close to the Nigerian man she calls him “Dad”. This is an appeal being made under Article 8 of the ECHR – the right to a family life.

The following day, it’s a different judge – this time he’s here in person.

The man in front of him is appealing against deportation to Kenya. He came to the UK as a baby with his mother and siblings.

As a teenager, he was jailed for almost 10 years for stabbing a man, causing serious injuries.

It emerges that his case is also based on Article 8 of the ECHR. Since leaving prison, he’s fathered a child who has just turned two.

There are arguments made too under Article 3 of the ECHR – which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – due to the man being diagnosed with “generalised anxiety” and depression.

It will be a few weeks before decisions are made on these cases – and the results won’t be published by the court.

I leave, thinking how opaque the process feels.

It’s also easy to see why some politicians are pointing to the ECHR – a treaty signed after the Second World War to protect the rights of everyone in the Council of Europe – as a barrier to removing more migrants.

Is the ECHR really a barrier to deportation?

“I think there’s a strong kind of political dynamic there which has led to, in some ways, you might say, a kind of scapegoating of the European Convention,” says Alice Donald, Professor of Human Rights law at Middlesex University, London.

She’s not convinced that withdrawal from ECHR would make a big difference to the number of people the UK is able to remove or deport.

“The honest answer is we don’t know, we don’t have enough data to say that,” she says.

“The data that we do have, for example, in relation to the number of human rights appeals against deportation by foreign national offenders, which has been very much in the news this year, suggests that it would really make only a marginal difference.”

Read more from Sky News:
What is a digital ID card, and will it be mandatory?
Farage on course to be next PM, mega poll projects

Those figures, published by the Home Office, reveal that between April 2008 and June 2021, 21,521 foreign nationals due to be deported because of crimes they’d committed appealed, and 2,392 were successful on human rights grounds only. That’s around 181 on average per year.

We don’t have figures for how many other types of immigrants are allowed to stay on the basis of human rights. Small boat migrants who claim asylum would usually rely on another convention.

“In terms of asylum claims, it is governed by the 1951 Refugee Convention as a different treaty,” Prof Donald explains.

“There is, of course, overlapping protection with the prohibition of torture in the European Convention… so if the Refugee Convention were still in place, then of course people seeking asylum would rely on that.”

She also believes there have been “a number of erroneous stories or exaggerated stories”.

Debunking the chicken nugget myth

In February 2025, it was widely reported that an Albanian criminal’s deportation was halted over his son’s dislike of foreign chicken nuggets.

“What actually happened in that case is that it went to the upper tribunal (second-tier immigration appeal court) which ordered that he could be deported. And also specifically said that the evidence to do with chicken nuggets was nowhere near the level required,” Prof Donald says.

What leaving the ECHR would mean

Withdrawal from the ECHR would mean the guarantees it provides would be removed for everyone in the UK, not just migrants.

It not only protects the rights to life, liberty, fair trial and freedom of expression among others, but also prohibits torture, slavery and discrimination.

Pulling out of the treaty could also breach the Belfast Good Friday Agreement – though some say such an outcome is avoidable.

However, in a country where immigration is the top issue of concern for voters, there are some who now think that is a price worth paying.

The King and Queen will meet the new Pope during a state visit to Vatican City next month.

The couple will join Leo XIV, who was elected pope earlier this year after the death of Pope Francis, in late October to celebrate the 2025 jubilee year, Buckingham Palace said.

The Catholic Church typically marks a papal jubilee every 25 years.

Charles and Camilla‘s visit is expected to celebrate the ecumenical work by the Church of England and the Catholic Church, reflecting the Jubilee year’s theme of walking together as “Pilgrims of Hope”.

The King is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a role which dates back to Henry VIII, who named himself Supreme Head of the Church of England after he was excommunicated by Pope Paul III and broke from the Catholic Church in the 16th century to marry Anne Boleyn.

The King and Queen had a meeting with Pope Francis just 12 days before he died.

Their historic state visit to the Vatican in early April was cancelled due to the then-pontiff’s poor health, but they managed to visit him privately during their trip to Italy.

The meeting with Francis, in what would be the final weeks of his life, was arranged at the last minute and took place on their 20th wedding anniversary on 9 April, with the pontiff wanting to personally wish them a happy anniversary.

Read more from Sky News:
Elon Musk and Prince Andrew named in latest Epstein files release
Watch moment diplomats walk out as Israeli PM speaks at UN

In an official message released following the news of Francis’s death on 21 April, the King said he and the Queen were “most deeply saddened”.

In May, Charles sent a private message to Pope Leo XIV congratulating him on his election, Buckingham Palace said.