Rishi Sunak believes the number of successful cases against migrant evictions will be “vanishingly” small. Photo: LEON NEAL/PA
Rishi Sunak Rwanda's emergency legislation will not be able to provide regular deportation flights without lengthy legal battles, a star chamber of Conservative lawyers has concluded.
A commission headed by Sir Bill Cash Snr Conservative MP, said the bill provides a «partial and incomplete solution» to the legal challenges illegal migrants use to delay or cancel their deportation to Rwanda.
«The Prime Minister may well be right when he claims that this is 'the toughest immigration legislation ever proposed by a UK government', but we don't think it goes far enough to deliver the policy as intended,» it said. in the statement. .
The legislation declares Rwanda a safe country for asylum seekers and is backed by a new treaty under which the African state has given legally binding guarantees to protect deported migrants after the Supreme Court ruled it unsafe. It also aims to limit the scope of legal action that could prevent deportation.
European Research Group Chairman Marc Francois (left) and Deputy Chairman David Jones following the release of the legal «star chamber» assessment. Photo: LUCY NORTH/PA
The panel of four lawyers said the bill would require «very significant amendments» to comprehensively address the shortcomings they identified. Their verdict, delivered on Monday to the European Study Group of Brexit Tory MPs, comes ahead of the first vote on the bill on Tuesday.
Their decision is in direct contradiction to the Prime Minister's position that the number of successful claims against expulsion by migrants will be “vanishingly” small.
To back up its claim, the government published its own legal opinion, which said the “cumulative” effect of its measures would “eliminate almost all grounds for expelling migrants.” an individual challenge that can be used to pause or disrupt removal.»
Individual lawsuits
What the Star Chamber says:
The fourth section of the bill allows migrants to bring individual claims against deportation if they can provide compelling evidence that Rwanda would be unsafe for them personally. «Systemic» claims that Rwanda as a whole is unsafe are prohibited.
The Star Chamber said that by simply allowing individual claims, appeals and injunctions, «the legislative scheme is opening itself up to serious legal challenges.»
“The experience to date of cases involving attempts to remove irregular migrants to Rwanda indicates that the individual challenges are likely to be numerous and that they have had a high level of success,” it added.
p>It says migrant lawyers have put “considerable effort” and “ingenuity” into making such claims and developing templates and practice guides. “It should be assumed that this will continue,” it said.
“The line between personal and “general” factors is uncertain and untested. In short, the fourth point and the possibility of a challenge in Rwanda for reasons other than security pose a significant risk to the implementation of the scheme, and this risk may be decisive,” it said.
What the Government says:
Legal advice says the path for individual migrants to challenge their removal will be “exceptionally narrow”.
It says that excluding such applications would mean that those who are unable to fly, such as women in the later stages of pregnancy or people suffering from very rare diseases that Rwanda cannot care for, could be deported without the right to judicial review.
< p>“To completely block any legal action would be a breach of international law and would be contrary to the UK's constitutional tradition of freedom and justice, where even in wartime the UK maintained access to the courts so that people could assert their rights and freedoms,” it said.He referred to articles two, three and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which required migrants to have the opportunity to challenge their removal in the UK courts on the basis of individual circumstances and the availability of legal remedies.
Claim threshold.
What the Star Chamber says:
Successful deportation claims will have to prove they faced an imminent risk of “serious and irreparable harm” if deported to Rwanda. The Star Chamber warned that this was “much easier to overcome than words would suggest.”
It said this could mean medical reports of mental health conditions that are not easily proven or disproved, such as suicidal ideation, political views that could lead to persecution in Rwanda, or statements of personal vulnerability regarding housing.
< p>Even if only some of the claims were successful, they said, the number of claims could reach hundreds per day, leading to ship clogging and flight delays. “There is a serious risk that there will be no or very few actual removals to Rwanda for several months after the bill comes into force,” the commission said.
What the government says:
The government's legal advice office said «almost all grounds» for individual challenge had been eliminated. These include asylum (which accounted for 90 percent of small boat arrivals last year) and modern slavery (which accounted for 71 percent of those detained for deportation in 2021).
This left only «very limited scope» for claims. where migrants will be required to provide «credible evidence» of a «real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious irreversible harm» if removed to Rwanda.
“This is an extremely high bar. You cannot simply claim that you have a mental illness: you will have to prove by evidence that it cannot be treated in Rwanda and that failure to treat it will lead directly to an immediate and irreparable deterioration of your health.” according to a government briefing document to MPs.
Excluding this route would make it impossible for the government to defend the Strasbourg scheme and would jeopardize Rwanda's policy as it would «run counter to Rwanda's own explicit wishes for our partnership with them remained compatible with international law, and would likely have destroyed the scheme.»
«Overall, the limited availability of domestic remedies maintains the constitutional balance between Parliament's ability to make laws it deems necessary and the power of our courts to hold the government to account,» he added.< /p> 
The “Star Chamber” of Conservative lawyers was headed by Sir Bill Cash, a senior member of Parliament from the Conservative Party. Photo: CHRIS McANDREW/UK Parliament, Strasbourg Bans
What the star chamber says:
The bill gives ministers the power to override Rule 39, ruled by Strasbourg judges under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and which was used to block the first flight from Rwanda in June 2022.
Star Chamber said the power to ignore injunctions was discretionary and would be blocked by Attorney General Victoria Prentice, who considers them «binding» on the government. This would mean the power «can never be used and is effectively a dead letter», the commission said.
Instead, the bill should be rewritten to require ministers to ignore the Strasbourg bans rather than leaving them as discretionary powers.
What the government says:
The government has refused to disclose the attorney general's legal advice but says the clause gives ministers — and them alone — the power to decide whether the UK will comply with the temporary measure. The bill also makes clear that the UK court should not take into account any Rule 39 prohibitions.
Rishi Sunak said he would “not allow foreign vessels to block flights”. Ministers are also in talks to reform the Rule 39 procedure to limit its application to «exceptional circumstances», giving them the right to make their case and challenge decisions.
Human Rights Act waiver
What the Star Chamber says:
The Bill exempts asylum claims from almost all parts of the Human Rights Act, but does not exclude two sections under which emergency legislation may be found to be incompatible with the ECHR. , the Star Chamber said.
It warned that if British courts declare the legislation inconsistent, the government will find it increasingly difficult to “maintain its position” that the bill complies with the UK's international obligations. .
What the government says:
The government has said that keeping the Act in two parts means Parliament and ministers can choose how to respond to an unfavorable trial. judgment. Neither will have any impact on the ability to fly from the ground.
“The principle that Parliament and the Government should be able to review any court decision of incompatibility, rather than having primary legislation overturned by the courts, is part of the fundamental basis of our constitution,” the government said.
Свежие комментарии