UK Politics

The first deportation flight of migrants to Rwanda was cancelled at the last minute on Tuesday night following interventions from the European Court of Human Rights.The court granted an urgent interim measure in regards to an Iraqi national on the flight, and it is understood it was considering a number of further requests.The appeals were considered by an out-of-hours judge on papers, overruling the UK’s rulings on a series of legal challenges ahead of the scheduled flight. It is understood that, at the present time, there is not a route for the Home Office to appeal against the decision.Home secretary Priti Patel described the intervention as “very surprising”, adding that “many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next”.Here, we take a look at the key questions surrounding the European Court and how it relates to the UK and this case.What is the European Court of Human Rights?The European Court of Human Rights is an international court set up in 1959 to rule on individual or state applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.Its judgments are binding on the 46 Council of Europe member states that have ratified the Convention.What is the difference between the Council of Europe and the European Union?The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading human rights organisation, while the European Union is an economic and political partnership.While Brexit represented the UK’s departure from the European Union, it is still a member of the Council of Europe and therefore remains beholden to the European Court and European Convention on Human Rights.What is the European Convention on Human Rights?The European Convention on Human Rights was developed amid World War Two to ensure that governments would never again be allowed to dehumanise and abuse people’s rights with impunity.It came into full effect in 1953 and intends to serve as a simple and flexible roundup of universal rights, which could be adapted over time.Articles listed in the Convention include the right to a fair trial, right to liberty and security, and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.Why did the European Court of Human Rights intervene in the Rwanda flight?The European Court of Human Rights confirmed that it had granted an urgent interim measure in regards to an Iraqi national, and it is understood the Court was considering a number of further requests.It is understood that the appeals were considered by an out-of-hours judge on papers, overruling the UK rulings. More

Human rights expert explains what stopped the first Rwanda flight
The humane, decent and moral response to migrants crossing the Channel is to send them to Rwanda, home secretary Priti Patel has said.Insisting the government will press ahead with its plan, she told MPs that “the usual suspects” had set out to “thwart” it, in an apparent reference to human-rights lawyers who have challenged it.But she added: “This government will not be deterred from doing the right thing. We will not be put off by the inevitable legal last-minute challenges. Nor will we allow mobs to block removals.”She said the decision by the European Court of Human Rights that halted last night’s flight was “disappointing and surprising” but “we remain committed to this policy”.The government will challenge the ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that grounded the Home Office’s Rwanda flight last night, a cabinet minister said earlier.Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson has confirmed the government is considering withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, saying “all options are on the table”.Show latest update

1655304745Opinion: Don’t blame Boris Johnson for the Rwanda mess – it’s what the public wantsA lot of people voted Conservative precisely because of things like the Rwanda policy, and Labour hasn’t come up with any credible alternative plans, writes Sean O’Grady. No one is explaining how the the European Convention on Human Rights protects people in this country or why migration is good for Britain. Until they do, England is drifting into becoming what you might call a Millwall nation:Jane Dalton15 June 2022 15:521655302264Today’s Dover arrivals tally hits 150The tally of people brought ashore in Dover today has risen to nearly 150, as low winds create ideal weather conditions for Channel crossing attempts.So far, approximately 146 people including around 28 children have been rescued from small boats in the Channel and taken to the Kent port on board Border Force ships.At Dover, the asylum-seekers are then put on buses and sent to processing centres.Border Force and RNLI ship activity suggests there may also have been rescues carrying migrants into Ramsgate or Dungeness.With crossings going on well into the night on Tuesday, it is likely there are more crossings to come and this number will increase when the Ministry of Defence releases the official figures on Thursday.The majority of people brought ashore in Dover today were men aged from their late teens to their 30s or 40s but there were also a number of women and children.The countries of origin of the people coming ashore in Dover included Afghanistan, Iraq and Egypt. More

A cabinet minister has insisted the Home Office is preparing the next flight to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda — but declined to say whether it would take place within days or weeks after a major setback.The comments from Therese Coffey came after the government’s inaugural £500,000 taxpayer-funded flight was halted just minutes before its scheduled departure on Tuesday evening, with a handful of migrants winning a legal reprieve.Around four asylum seekers were due to board the aircraft, but last minute appeals were granted by an out-of-hours European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judge, in a blow to the government.Speaking on Sky News, the work and pensions secretary Ms Coffey said that ministers were “surprised and disappointed” by the late ruling a judge at the European Court of Human Rights (EHRC).“I think the public will be surprised we have European judges overruling British judges,” she claimed. “But nevertheless I know the Home Office is already getting ready for next flight. We will continue to prepare.”The work and pensions secretary insisted she was “highly confident” the next flight would go ahead, but declined to say when the Home Office would be scheduling a second charter plane for the divisive policy.Quizzed on whether it would be days or weeks, Ms Coffey said she is “not going to get into operational discussions” while insisting the policy, which has been condemned by church leaders, remained “value for money”. More

Boris Johnson’s plans to tear up post-Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland have come under fierce attack from Washington, with senior congressmen on both sides of the US political divide warning the “irresponsible” move is a threat to peace in the province.EU commissioners are expected later this week to initiate new legal action against the UK, after Monday’s publication of a bill which would unilaterally rewrite the Northern Ireland protocol agreed by Mr Johnson with Brussels in 2019.A former head of the government’s legal service said that ministers’ attempt to justify the move was “hopeless”, while another legal expert said the UK would face an “uphill struggle” to persuade any court that it did not amount to a breach of international law.Foreign secretary Liz Truss said that the UK had been forced to take unilateral action because negotiations with Brussels to alleviate the disruption to trade in Northern Ireland following Brexit had reached a “dead end”.But European capitals backed Brussels’ approach, with Germany saying the UK action was “not acceptable” and warning that “peace and prosperity on the island of Ireland are not a pawn”.And Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney said London appeared “for whatever political reason” to be trying to “dismantle the protocol, which is international law, which was carefully put together over a number of years through painstaking negotiation involving this British prime minister to solve or to manage the disruption of Brexit on the island of Ireland as best we could”.Irish premier Micheal Martin said Mr Johnson’s proposals were not “well thought out or well thought through” and the provisions of the bill would prove “anti-business and anti-industry”.In a sternly-worded joint statement, a group of senior members of Congress urged the UK and EU to “continue negotiations in good faith to achieve durable solutions to post-Brexit trade challenges”.The statement, signed by House ways and means chair Richard Neal, Europe committee chair Bill Keating and ranking Republican Brian Fitzpatrick and Congressional EU caucus chair Brendan Boyle, noted that the protocol was signed by Mr Johnson and ratified by the Westminster parliament.“The introduction of legislation in the United Kingdom undermines the Northern Ireland protocol, threatens international law, and, most concerningly, could jeopardise the almost 25 years of peace established by the Good Friday Agreement,” they warned.Congressman Boyle said that the legislation “clearly violates international law”, noting that around 60 per cent of members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly last month back the protocol in its current form.In a separate statement, the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee Bob Menendez said he was “deeply disappointed” by the UK’s decision “to unilaterally try to upend the Northern Ireland protocol”.“The proposal is an irresponsible move that threatens the 24 years of peace enjoyed since the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland signed the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 as well as the economic wellbeing of everyone living on the island,” he warned, adding that the row was an “unneeded distraction” from international unity over Ukraine”.Washington has issued a reassurance that the UK’s action would not block a possible future trade deal, but progress on that front has been negligible anyway since the arrival in office of President Joe Biden.And a White House spokesperson called on both sides to “return to talks to resolve differences”.UK ministers have said that their bid to override elements of the protocol relating to trade across the Irish Sea, the involvement of the European Court of Justice in dispute resolution and Wesminster control over tax rates in Northern Ireland is justified because the protocol in its current form is unacceptable to the unionist community.But DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson dashed government hopes that the publication of the bill would trigger a return to power-sharing institutions by the largest unionist party, which has blocked the formation of an assembly and executive since last month’s elections.“There’s a long way to go with this legislation. It will take months to pass through the Commons and the Lords unless the government decides to escalate the timetable for the bill, and we haven’t heard that,” he said.“So, we will consider what happens in the legislative process, but at this stage we haven’t come to a view as to when the institutions might be restored.”Legal experts gave short shrift to the government’s reliance on a concept known as the “doctrine of necessity” to support its claim that the bill will not breach international law.The International Law Commission states that the doctrine can be invoked only in conditions of “grave and imminent peril” and in cases where the state deploying it has not contributed to the situation by its own actions.A legal position signed off by attorney general Suella Braverman contends that this requirement is met because of “diversion of trade and serious societal and economic difficulties occasioned by the protocol” and “the strain that the arrangements under the Protocol are placing on institutions in Northern Ireland”.But Sir Jonathan Jones – who quit as Treasury solicitor over an admission that legislation in 2020 would breach international law – described the position as “surely hopeless, giving no evidence of how this high test is met”.“The EU will surely see it as a gross breach of the Withdrawal Agreement,” he said. “Legal proceedings seem inevitable.”And Cambridge University law professor Mark Elliott said the government’s argument “engenders ridicule” and it was “highly doubtful” that any court would accept it.“It would be an understatement to say that the government would face an uphill struggle in seeking to satisfy a court that the bill could be justified by reference to necessity,” said Prof Elliott.“By announcing its intention to enact this legislation, and by accompanying it with a ‘legal justification’ that engenders ridicule, the government has once again signalled its willingness to play fast and loose with the rule of law and its commitment to a rules-based international order.“In doing so, it cedes moral authority, casts doubt on its reliability as a treaty partner — including in any future trade negotiations — and invites other states to plead political convenience masquerading as ‘necessity’ in order to justify reneging on treaty obligations.” More

Boris Johnson’s “desperate and cruel” policy to deter asylum-seekers was in disarray last night after the handful of migrants on the first deportation flight to Rwanda won a last-minute legal reprieve.The £500,000 taxpayer-funded flight was halted minutes before it was due to take off following interventions by the European Court of Human Rights.It came despite ministers earlier insisting the flight would go ahead no matter how few were on board.It is understood appeals were granted by an out-of-hours ECHR judge while the migrants were on their way from a detention centre near Heathrow to Boscombe Down in Wiltshire from where a chartered aircraft was aleady waiting to take them to Rwanda.With no route for the Home Office to appeal the decision, the flight was abandoned shortly before 10pm.Home secretary Priti Patel insisted the plan will continue, saying: “Many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next. Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.“We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans.”Earlier, lawyers for home secretary Priti Patel were forced to confirm in court that Britain would bring individuals back from Rwanda if the policy is ruled unlawful in a judicial review next month.Ministers have previously claimed the policy would deter migrants from embarking on perilous trips by dinghy across one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, and the Rwanda flights are being publicised in Calais and other embarkation points. And Boris Johnson boasted that the policy – branded “immoral” by Church of England bishops – could see tens of thousands sent to the African country.The Refugee Council said government claims of a deterrent effect “have already been disproven” by the numbers continuing to travel across the Channel.“We always knew these measures would do little to stop desperate people making dangerous journeys to the UK, because they do absolutely nothing to address the reasons people come,” said chief executive Enver Solomon.Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) head of policy Zoe Gardner told The Independent there was no evidence that the “desperate and cruel” Rwanda flights will stem the flow of boats.“This will not make refugees disappear,” she said. “We’ve told this government time and again what would prevent perilous crossings and save lives – and that’s safe routes for people seeking sanctuary here.”About 250 people are believed to have arrived in the UK on Tuesday, as courts in London rejected the pleas of four migrants – three Iranian men and one from Vietnam – to halt their removal.But a 5pm injunction from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) saw an Iraqi man in his 50s taken off the deportation list just hours before he was due to board the 200-seater Boeing 767 jet at Boscombe Down.The ECHR said that medical examinations of the man, who left Iraq in April and crossed the Channel by small boat before claiming asylum on 17 May, showed signs of possible torture. Its ruling took into account the assessment of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that asylum seekers do not have access to “fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status” in Rwanda and that no legally enforceable mechanism exists to ensure their return to the UK. Similar injunctions were later granted for the remaining deportees until none were left.Mr Johnson hinted that he may be ready to take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure the continued operation of the scheme.Asked if the controversial move was on the table, he replied: “Will it be necessary to change some laws to help us as we go along? It may very well be and all these options are under constant review.”The prime minister also provoked fury in the legal profession by accusing those fighting the deportations of “abetting the work of the criminal gangs” of people smugglers.In a joint statement, the Bar Council and Law Society responded: “It is misleading and dangerous for the prime minister to suggest lawyers who bring such legal challenges are doing anything other than their job and upholding the law.“Anyone at risk of a life-changing order has a right to challenge its legality with the assistance of a lawyer, who has a duty to advise their client on their rights.”And Mr Johnson came under fire over the estimated bill of more than £80,000 per head for the chartered flight, with former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell telling The Independent: “It would be cheaper to put them up in the Ritz for a year on half-board with a bottle of champagne every lunchtime.”As Anglican bishops signed a joint letter denouncing the scheme, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said: “Deporting asylum seekers should shame us as a nation.”And Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the deportation programme was “unworkable, unethical, extortionately expensive and risks making smuggling and trafficking worse.“The government has ended up targeting torture victims instead of trafficking gangs,” said Ms Cooper.Numbers of weekly arrivals detected by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) have fallen from the 1,071 recorded at the time the policy was announced on 14 April to between 190 and 762 in subsequent weeks.The latest official figures saw 138 arrive on Monday, while BBC reporters on the scene estimated around 250 were helped to shore on Tuesday.The fluctuating figures are heavily influenced by factors such as the weather and sea conditions, and there is little sign of a return to the levels seen as recently as 2019, when fewer than 2,000 made the crossing in a year.Chief inspector of borders and immigration David Neal last week told MPs he had seen no sign of arrival numbers being reduced by the scheme, while the Home Office’s top civil servant Matthew Rycroft told Ms Patel in a letter in April that “evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain”.Up to 130 people were initially told they could be on the inaugural Rwanda flight. Home Office sources said that work was underway to overcome legal barriers preventing removals, and many of those who avoided today’s flight can be expected to be on the next, expected to depart within weeks.Many of those involved are understood to be in detention, and if the policy survives judicial review, further planes are expected to be chartered to take them to Rwanda as and when their cases are processed.In a press conference in Kigali, Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said they were expecting to receive “thousands” of deportees over the life of the partnership signed with Britain.Challenged over the cost to the taxpayer of the exercise, a UK government source said that the bill for the asylum system currently stands at £1.5bn a year, with £5m spent each week on housing migrants.“The savings to the taxpayer will come,” said the source. “With people dying and our borders insecure, what cost are people saying is too much to deter these crossings?”Clare Moseley, founder of charity Care4Calais, which is bringing judicial review proceedings alongside Detention Action and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), described the removals as “absolutely shocking and horrifying” and said the planned series of flights would be “costly and ineffective”.“You have to question the motivation,” said Ms Moseley. “It’s not because they want to stop people traffickers and save lives, because if they wanted to do that they would open up more safe routes for refugees.”And Graeme McGregor of Detention Action said it was “absolutely absurd to send a handful of people to Rwanda in an attempt to scare people.” More

Liz Truss defends Rwanda asylum scheme as ‘completely legal and moral’
Priti Patel has told of her disapointment that the first deportation flight to Rwanda will no longer take off, but said tonight’s legal defeats will not prevent her from “doing the right thing.”The home secretary added: “Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.”A spokesperson for the Rwandan government has similarly said it will not be deterred by Tuesday’s successful legal bids.“Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work,” Yolande Makolo said, adding: “Rwanda stands ready to receive the migrants when they do arrive and offer them safety and opportunity in our country.”Their remarks follow a series of succesful, eleventh-hour interventions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which saw all migrants bound for the African country removed from the plane at Boscombe Down, near Salisbury.The appeals were considered by an out-of-hours judge on papers, PA agency understands, who overruled the UK rulings.It is also understood that, at present , there is not a route for the Home Office to appeal against the decision.Show latest update

1655258400Government hired grounded jet because it ‘just wants row and someone else to blame’The government has spent £120m on a deal with Rwanda and hired a plane that was grounded at the last minute “because they just want a row and someone else to blame”, the shadow home secretary has said.Posting on Twitter, Yvette Cooper added:”There is no point in Govt blaming anyone else but themselves. Ministers are pursuing a policy they know isn’t workable & that won’t tackle criminal gangs.”Emily Atkinson15 June 2022 03:001655254800Watch: Rwanda deportation flight called off at last minute after European judges interveneRwanda deportation flight called off at last minute after European judges interveneEmily Atkinson15 June 2022 02:001655251200Government must stop ‘inhumane’ Rwanda policy, says unionResponding to the news of today’s sucessful legal bids, Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, said: “We’re pleased the courts have ruled to stop this flight.“It’s time for the government to stop this inhumane policy which is the basest of gesture politics and start to engage seriously with sorting out the asylum system so those who come to our country seeking refuge are treated fairly and according to the law.”Emily Atkinson15 June 2022 01:001655247600‘Send you to Rwanda’ emerging as new racist slur on social media, public figures warnLondon mayor Sadiq Khan, home secretary Priti Patel, Labour MP Diane Abbott and campaigner Femi Oluwole, among numerous others, have been targeted by online users suggesting that they should be removed from Britain and flown to the east African country.Discussing the trend, Sunder Katwala, director of think tank British Future, pointed out that the slur was also being used by both left- and right-leaning commentators against people they disagree with or dislike, with those from ethnic minorities being disproportionately targeted.Our race correspondent Nadine White reports:Emily Atkinson15 June 2022 00:001655246439Here is some of the latest reaction on Twitter to the grounding of the plane that was bound for Rwanda today:Emily Atkinson14 June 2022 23:401655244459Government ‘determined’ to press on with Rwanda planThe grounding of tonight’s deportation flight to Rwanda is “indicative of the inhumanity of the plan” and the government’s “complete refusal to see the face behind the case,” the Refugee Council has said.Chief executive Enver Solomon added: “Whilst we are relieved to hear the flight to Rwanda did not take off as planned tonight, it is clear that the government remain determined to press on with this deal – leaving us to continue to witness the human suffering, distress, and chaos the threat of removal will cause with far reaching consequences for desperate people who are simply in need of safety.Emily Atkinson14 June 2022 23:071655243385‘Preparation for next flight begins now’, says PatelPriti Patel has told of her disapointment that the flight to Rwanda will no longer take off, but said tonight’s legal defeats will not deter her from “doing the right thing.”The home secretary added: “Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.”Emily Atkinson14 June 2022 22:491655243195London mayor condemns ‘cruel and callous’ Rwanda policyEmily Atkinson14 June 2022 22:461655242103 Rwanda deportation flight called off at last minute after European judges interveneThe flight that was scheduled to deport the first refugees to Rwanda will not take off following a series of eleventh-hour interventions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).All migrants have been removed from the plane at Boscombe Down, near Salisbury, government sources have confirmed.More follows as we have it:Emily Atkinson14 June 2022 22:281655240639Number of passengers ‘down to zero’, reports suggestEmily Atkinson14 June 2022 22:03 More