Jeff King: The House of Lords, Constitutional Propriety, and the Safety of Rwanda Bill – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Lords on 29 January 2024, having cleared the House of Commons unamended. There are a great many problems with the Rwanda Bill, any of which might weigh with the Lords, but this blog post focuses on just one: the likelihood that, if enacted, the Bill may well trigger a constitutional crisis between the courts and Parliament. It would be a crisis that is likely to endure beyond the life of the policy embodied in the Bill. I argue here that one of the roles of the House of Lords is to act as a constitutional safeguard, a steam-valve, and, in exercise of this function under the rare circumstances that attend this Bill, it would be legitimate for the Lords to not only make and insist upon far-reaching changes to the Bill, but even to refuse to pass it altogether. This post is not concerned with the realpolitik of whether peers would in fact vote the Bill down – though I come to the point in the conclusion. It rather seeks to refute the constitutional argument that it would be illegitimate to block or make potent amendments to it.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th January 2024

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

What is rule 39? UK government tells civil servants to ignore European court of human rights on Rwanda deportations – EIN Blog

‘The UK government is once again navigating legal and political hurdles over its plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The latest debate is over the emergency bill that legally declares Rwanda a safe place to send refugees (despite the supreme court ruling the opposite).’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 23rd January 2024

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill is step towards totalitarianism, top lawyer in the Lords warns – The Independent

‘A leading lawyer who sits in the Lords has warned that Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill is “a step toward totalitarianism”.’

Full Story

The Independent, 18th January 2024

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Legislating fiction – EIN Blog

‘Members of Parliament in the UK will on 16 and 17 January 2024 debate the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which “gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country” for asylum-seekers. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was manifestly not safe as asylum seekers sent to the country would face a real risk of ill-treatment due to insufficient guarantees against refoulement. The Bill thus aims to use law to determine a factual situation for as long as the law is in force. This blog discusses the risks inherent in creating such a “legal fiction” and how the Bill could be revised to mitigate this risk, before assessing the chances of it becoming law in the currently turbulent political context.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 16th January 2024

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Sanjit Nagi: The Stranglehold of New Labour and Lord Irvine’s Rights-based Constitution – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Last year’s Supreme Court decision in R (AAA) v Home Secretary – which found the British government’s Rwanda policy to be unlawful – has reignited broader debates about the position of a government which commands a majority in Parliament vis a vis the judiciary, the separation of powers, the extent to which legislating against judicial decisions is constitutionally proper or compatible with the rule of law, and the appropriateness of disapplying sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). This post does not restate or reengage with such topics; substantive attention has already been given by Tom Hickman KC, Professor Mark Elliott, Adam Tucker, Professor Sarah Singer, and Richard Ekins KC et al. Neither does it take a position on the feasibility or desirability of any specific government policy, the continued operation of HRA 1998, or membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Instead, this post will argue that the backlash to and disapproval of the British government’s response to R (AAA) – the introduction of the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which, amongst other measures, allows Parliament to diverge from the Supreme Court’s judgment – neatly evidences the intended effect of New Labour and Lord Derry Irvine’s HRA 1998 system and judicial reforms.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th January 2024

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

UK government admits Rwanda has ‘issues with its human rights record’ – The Guardian

Posted January 12th, 2024 in asylum, bills, deportation, government departments, human rights, immigration, news, Rwanda by sally

‘The government has admitted that Rwanda still has “issues with its human rights record” despite claims by Rishi Sunak that it is a safe country.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 11th January 2024

Source: www.theguardian.com

Court of Appeal: ‘Very significant obstacles to integration’ is an objective test – EIN Blog

Posted November 28th, 2023 in asylum, deportation, mistake, news, reasons, regulations by tracey

‘NC v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1379 (22 November 2023). The Court of Appeal has held that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in its application of the “very significant obstacles to integration” test set out in paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules, as then in force, by failing to turn its attention to any evidence beyond an individual’s subjective fear of violence if they were returned to their home country. On proper analysis, the FTT should have focused on the reality of the individual’s daily life if returned; specifically, what steps she could reasonable take to avoid or mitigate her fear, such as by seeking state protection or asking for help from relatives. The appellant, “NC”, maintained that there was no error of law in the FTT’s determination, that the Upper Tribunal was itself in error in concluding that there was and that the FTT’s determination in her favour should stand. However, the SSHD maintained that the Upper Tribunal was correct to find that the FTT had made an error of law and to set aside the FTT’s determination. The focus of the appeal was on the meaning of “very significant obstacles to … integration” as those words appeared in paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) at the material time. The appellant “NC” appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s determination that the FTT had made an error of law when it concluded that she should not be returned to St Kitts and Nevis. NC came to the UK in March 2016, aged 28. She claimed asylum in October 2016.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 27th November 2023

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Court of Appeal: ‘Very significant obstacles to integration’ is an objective test – EIN Blog

Posted November 27th, 2023 in appeals, asylum, deportation, government departments, immigration, news, violence by tracey

‘NC v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1379 (22 November 2023). The Court of Appeal has held that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in its application of the “very significant obstacles to integration” test set out in paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules, as then in force, by failing to turn its attention to any evidence beyond an individual’s subjective fear of violence if they were returned to their home country. On proper analysis, the FTT should have focused on the reality of the individual’s daily life if returned; specifically, what steps she could reasonable take to avoid or mitigate her fear, such as by seeking state protection or asking for help from relatives. The appellant, “NC”, maintained that there was no error of law in the FTT’s determination, that the Upper Tribunal was itself in error in concluding that there was and that the FTT’s determination in her favour should stand. However, the SSHD maintained that the Upper Tribunal was correct to find that the FTT had made an error of law and to set aside the FTT’s determination. The focus of the appeal was on the meaning of “very significant obstacles to … integration” as those words appeared in paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) at the material time. The appellant “NC” appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s determination that the FTT had made an error of law when it concluded that she should not be returned to St Kitts and Nevis. NC came to the UK in March 2016, aged 28. She claimed asylum in October 2016.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 27th November 2023

Source: www.ein.org.uk

The Supreme Court’s Rwanda Judgment: What Now for the Government? – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘All eyes were on the Supreme Court last Wednesday when it handed down its ruling on the lawfulness of the government’s much-criticised Rwanda scheme. The judgment featured a number of important issues (including issues relating to retained EU law) but the key question for the Court was simple: would sending individuals making asylum claims in the UK to Rwanda – to make asylum claims there instead – subject them to a real risk of ill-treatment? The Supreme Court’s answer was that it would. The government’s policy was therefore unlawful.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 22nd November 2023

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Theodore Konstadinides: Reassessing the UK’s Rwanda Asylum Policy: Tinkering with International Law and the Constitution – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘On 15 November, the Supreme Court issued its much-awaited judgment in the case of AAA and others v the Home Secretary, commonly referred to as the Rwanda asylum policy case. The decision came notably quickly, almost a month after the case was heard, indicating the Court’s responsiveness to the urgency and the wider public interest surrounding the case. Despite the swift turnaround, the judgment was meticulously formulated, reflecting the serious implications of the case.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 21st November 2023

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Adam Tucker: The Rwanda Policy, Legal Fiction(s), and Parliament’s Legislative Authority – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Last week the Supreme Court (in R (AAA) v Home Secretary) found the UK government’s policy to send asylum applicants to Rwanda unlawful on the grounds that “removal … to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement” [149]. In response, the Prime Minister announced that the government intends to “take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation” which “will enable Parliament to confirm that… Rwanda is safe”.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd November 2023

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Unanimous Supreme Court: Rwanda removals are unlawful – UK Human Rights Blog

‘R ((AAA) Syria and Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42. The Government’s flagship policy of removing individual asylum seekers to Rwanda for their claims to be decided under the Rwandan asylum system that was announced on 14th April 2022 has been found to be unlawful by a unanimous Supreme Court.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 15th November 2023

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Immigration Blog: Age Assessments – More Than Just a Number – Garden Court Chambers

Posted November 16th, 2023 in asylum, chambers articles, children, deportation, detention, immigration, news by sally

‘In the immigration rules (352ZD) the definition of an Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Child (“UASC”) is broad and aimed at child protection. It expressly includes children who lodged their claim whilst they were under 18 (even if they have since turned 18); their age is set in time at point of entry. This is no longer the case under section 4 IMA. On 5 July 2023, the government published a children’s rights impact assessment of the IMA, finding that it would “protect children from the risk of death, trafficking.” The Children’s Commissioner responded: “I am far from convinced that is the case. Indeed, I am concerned that the threat to a child of deportation at 18 will be a gift to traffickers, as children will feel less able to seek help from professionals and instead go missing into the hands of exploiters.”’

Full Story

Garden Court Chambers, 2nd October 2023

Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk

Rishi Sunak to bring in emergency law after supreme court’s Rwanda ruling – The Guardian

‘Rishi Sunak has staked his political credibility on pushing through emergency legislation to resurrect his high-profile plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, after the supreme court ruled it was unlawful.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 15th November 2023

Source: www.theguardian.com

Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next – EIN Blog

‘The UK supreme court has unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 15th November 2023

Source: www.ein.org.uk

What is the ECHR and how does it relate to the Rwanda migrants policy? – The Independent

‘In a bid to appease the Tory right, Conservative leaders have for years flirted with taking the nuclear option of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.’

Full Story

The Independent, 15th November 2023

Source: www.independent.co.uk

How the UK government’s Rwanda asylum plan came unstuck – The Guardian

‘The supreme court has ruled that the government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful. Peter Walker explains what happens next.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 16th November 2023

Source: www.theguardian.com

Supreme Court rules Rwanda asylum policy unlawful – BBC News

‘The UK’s highest court has ruled the Rwanda asylum policy is unlawful.’

Full Story

BBC News, 15th November 2023

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

UK supreme court to rule on legality of plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda – The Guardian

‘Rishi Sunak’s government will discover next Wednesday whether its flagship immigration policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 9th November 2023

Source: www.theguardian.com

Domestic-abuse victims fear deportation if they go to police – BBC News

‘Every police force in England and Wales has reported migrants who are domestic-abuse victims to Immigration Enforcement, new data suggests.’

Full Story

BBC News, 9th November 2023

Source: www.bbc.co.uk