Victoria Prentice, the attorney general, is not ruling anything out, according to a government source. Photo: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Cabinet Ministers are prepared for the Attorney General to block the deportation of migrants to Rwanda if the European Court of Human Rights intervenes again to stop the flights.
The Home Office is preparing to resume flights to Rwanda within weeks if the Supreme Court rules the scheme is legal. A decision is expected next month. However, European judges could still order the flights to cease, as happened last June.
Some ministers believe that if they do so, Attorney General Victoria Prentice will push for the order because it will be legally binding, despite the new powers theoretically allowing Britain to ignore it.
Rishi Sunak will then face the prospect of either overriding his attorney-general's concerns or agreeing to delay policies that he believes will discourage small ships from crossing the English Channel.
It could also lead to a cabinet split over about whether promises are worth making. withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights at the next general election.
On Thursday, Ms Prentice's allies said she had no complete opposition to using new powers in the Irregular Migration Act to ignore European Court rulings and «nothing didn’t rule it out.”
The government is drawing up plans to deal with the possible outcome of the Supreme Court hearing, and sources rejected «speculation» about what steps could be taken after the ruling. Some government officials have even suggested that Ms. Prentice could be moved in a reshuffle before a critical decision is made.
The Supreme Court will begin a three-day hearing on Monday to determine whether it is legal to deport migrants to Rwanda to claim asylum there, a central part of Mr Sunak's «stop the boats» pledge.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that this policy was illegal due to the risk that migrants could then be sent back to their country of origin where they would face persecution or inhumane treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
< p>The Tories have long debated whether Britain should remain party to the convention, negotiated in 1950 and overseen by a court in Strasbourg.
Cabinet ministers told The Telegraph that around a quarter of cabinet ministers could consider supporting a departure if flights to Rwanda will be blocked, naming Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, Steve Barclay, Kemi Badenoch, Grant Shapps, Alistair Jack, David T.S. Davis and Chris. Heaton-Harris.
No one has publicly called for leaving the convention, meaning the claim is speculative.
If Rwanda's policy is found to be legal, flights could be scheduled for weeks. If this is found illegal, the government is considering signing a formal treaty with Rwanda the next day to counter the legal challenges.
This would likely make it clear that deported migrants would not then be sent back. to their countries of origin, even if their application for asylum in the UK is rejected, which is currently the subject of legal disputes.
The Home Office could then decide to continue the flights, claiming that it has resolved the issues raised in the ruling — a claim that is likely to be disputed by critics.
In both scenarios, the European Court of Justice, which oversees the convention, could issue another injunction, known as a Rule 39 order, to stop the flights. One such order blocked the first flight from Rwanda at 11am last June.
The government will then have to decide whether to use powers under the Illegal Migration Act to ignore such a ruling and start flying anyway.< /p>
Ms Prentice had reportedly raised concerns in the past about the legality of such a move before ultimately agreeing to include it in the legislation. Some in the Cabinet believe she will resist attempts to defy Strasbourg's order and begin flights to Rwanda, perhaps through formal legal advice.
Allies have said she is prepared to approve the flights anyway, but will have to carefully study the details. the decision of the Supreme Court and what exactly the European Court did with its ban.
A government source said: “The Attorney General is not ruling anything out. She works closely with Number 10 and the Home Office to stop the boats. It is right that we wait for the outcome of the Supreme Court case rather than speculate on hypotheses.»
A Home Office source said: «This is just speculation and the government has been clear from the outset that we will do everything possible to stop the boats. We are confident in the legality of our scheme in Rwanda and await the Supreme Court's decision.”
The decision on how to proceed will ultimately be made by Mr Sunak. He has not publicly speculated about what will happen after the Supreme Court decision, and cabinet colleagues say he is resisting the idea of withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights.
The pledge to withdraw could spark a backlash from liberals . The Tories risk international condemnation because many Western countries have signed up to the convention, which was created in part thanks to the support of Winston Churchill.
Свежие комментарии