First asylum seeker removals to Rwanda set for 14 June

[dyqik]

A brief look behind the headlines of ‘the government’s Rwanda policy has been ruled lawful’, which puts it in a rather different light

It's more of a ruling that the policy aims could possibly be legal, but to implement it legally, you need to spend huge amounts of time and effort on a case by case basis, such that there's no benefit whatsoever to the policy.

[FlammableFlower]

And now the Court of Appeal has told the government to bugger off.

[IvanV]

And now the Court of Appeal has told the government to bugger off.

But it will go to the Supreme Court, who seem to be a bit more politically captured these days. But further delay is good. Though since Labour seem to be still playing "who can be the most illiberal over justice and migration", maybe delaying it to after the election doesn't help.

[jimbob]

£169k per person to ship to Rwanda.

Costing us lots to hurt vulnerable people and trash our reputation

[Grumble]

£169k per person to ship to Rwanda.

Costing us lots to hurt vulnerable people and trash our reputation

And swap their refugees to come here

[nekomatic]

And now the Court of Appeal has told the government to bugger off.

But it will go to the Supreme Court, who seem to be a bit more politically captured these days.

Only if the Court of Appeal give permission. Although they probably will, I guess.

[jimbob]

And in shameful news that's not surprising.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 89616.html

An Afghan intelligence analyst who played a “key” role in helping the British military in Kabul has been threatened with deportation to Rwanda after fleeing to the UK on a small boat.

[EACLucifer]

And in shameful news that's not surprising.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 89616.html

An Afghan intelligence analyst who played a “key” role in helping the British military in Kabul has been threatened with deportation to Rwanda after fleeing to the UK on a small boat.

Utterly disgraceful

[noggins]

You've got to admire the Schroedingerosity of policy that will deter asylum seekers without illegally harming them

[Grumble]

Supreme Court rules policy illegal

[Fishnut]

Thank god for that

[IvanV]

Thank god for that

It seems that the supreme court has not struck down the principle of sending asylum seekers to third countries, but has ruled that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda is a safe third country. It seems to be conceded that a proper assessment could not come to the same conclusion.

Sunak has said he is now looking for another third country.

According to David Allen Green, the application of the policy had already been so circumscribed the courts - requiring an assessment of the case for such an overseas transfer in respect of each individual case - that it had already been made difficult to use in practice, and limited in scale, regardless of today's decision. I read other commentators presenting similar views. The same will apply to any other third country. So the application of the policy is likely to be limited, even should they find another country willing to be paid to take our refugees.

The Supreme Court seems to have gone a bit further than such commentators suggested it might.

[lpm]

Is it true we've paid £140m to Rwanda already, before checking with lawyers it was legal? Are we all now allowed to make £140m mistakes at work? If so I've got a few to confess to.

[jimbob]

Is it true we've paid £140m to Rwanda already, before checking with lawyers it was legal? Are we all now allowed to make £140m mistakes at work? If so I've got a few to confess to.

£140M doesn't even get onto the radar given how much was spaffed in the Covid VIP lane.

[IvanV]

Is it true we've paid £140m to Rwanda already, before checking with lawyers it was legal? Are we all now allowed to make £140m mistakes at work? If so I've got a few to confess to.

The press seems to be uniformly reporting that we have already paid at least £140m, but further installments will not arrive if no people are sent.

In 2018, there was that money paid for freight ferry service, in case of a no-deal Brexit, to a company with no ships and no experience of running freight ferries, and no immediate plans to rectify those disadvantages.

Typically in these cases, the civil servants are aware that procurement rules are not being properly followed, and refuse to sign without a clear written order from a minister to do so, that absolves them of any blame for signing it and paying.

[IvanV]

More recent reactions from the government suggest tying things up better in a treaty with Rwanda to get past the issues in the Supreme Court Judgment. They also suggest changing the law.

The former suggestion, a treaty with Rwanda, reminds me of when the Cameron government desperately wanted to extradite Abu Qatada to Jordan. (I found it utterly shocking that David Cameron would publicly speak on a case in progress, seemingly asserting the guy was guilty as hell - something that was never proved to legal standards either in Britain or Jordan). But the court repeatedly stopped it because Jordan was not deemed an acceptable extradition destination. Jordan executed people, and applied pressure to extract evidence from them (alias torture), etc.

So Britain made a treaty with Jordan guaranteeing that any people extradited from Britain to Jordan would not suffer any of the problems that might result in the court finding Jordan a place they should not be extradited to. With this in place, Abu Qatada was duly extradited to Jordan. Where he was acquitted of the case against him, because they didn't actually have any hard evidence against him, only what they tortured out of him when he was previously there. In a sense, that was a kind of a just outcome. He would never have been a refugee in Britain if there hadn't been a trumped-up case against him in Jordan, and we got him back there but safe from the trumped up case. I confess I thought the treaty unenforceable, and so rather expected that Abu Qatada would not have a fair trial on his return, treaty or no treaty. But apparently I was wrong. I suppose it was very important that the concept wasn't shown immediately to be a sham, and so it actually had effect. Doubtless Britain had some kind of a hold on Jordan to behave.

But what an effort to achieve something whose likely only consequence was the extradition of one specific individual, because he was a prominent Islamic radical. Whilst there would be numerous other Islamic radicals in the country, in hardly any other case would the precise circumstances exist that allowed them to extradite Abu Qatada. They must have thought the optics of that specific case huge to go to the lengths to achieve it.

But it does indicate the potential for the government to overcome the courts' typical objection to sending people by legal process to specific countries, through a treaty with them offering guarantees to protect the people so sent.

It also indicates the willingness of the government to go to such extreme lengths to achieve something of relatively small importance in real terms, but with optics that are apparently very important to them.

[monkey]

"Rwanda's not a safe place to send asylum seekers."

"It is now," says Sunak "I've just passed a law saying so"

Because that's how safety works.

[jimbob]

"Rwanda's not a safe place to send asylum seekers."

"It is now," says Sunak "I've just passed a law saying so"

Because that's how safety works.

I thought you were exaggerating.

[TopBadger]

Maybe I misunderstood the court today... but then I only heard Cleverly's depiction of the decision, which sounded to me like the issue the court had wasnt with Rwanda per se, but rather there was no mechanism to stop Rwanda deporting in turn to an unsafe country.

[discovolante]

Maybe I misunderstood the court today... but then I only heard Cleverly's depiction of the decision, which sounded to me like the issue the court had wasnt with Rwanda per se, but rather there was no mechanism to stop Rwanda deporting in turn to an unsafe country.

You can read the judgments and press summaries here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.html obviously not exactly a quick read but the press summaries may help.

I'm really sorry, once again I'm firing a link at people without actually doing much about it myself. Last time I was just being a bit lazy, this time it genuinely is because I'm a bit busy

[discovolante]

On the topic of me being lazy, not to detract from the Rwanda issue (it shouldn't because I'm just linking to a separate thread), there is more refugee shittiness here viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3932#p154295

[IvanV]

Maybe I misunderstood the court today... but then I only heard Cleverly's depiction of the decision, which sounded to me like the issue the court had wasnt with Rwanda per se, but rather there was no mechanism to stop Rwanda deporting in turn to an unsafe country.

You can read the judgments and press summaries here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.html obviously not exactly a quick read but the press summaries may help.

I'm really sorry, once again I'm firing a link at people without actually doing much about it myself. Last time I was just being a bit lazy, this time it genuinely is because I'm a bit busy

The Press Summary appears to make clear that the SoS's appeal was dismissed for precisely and only the reason that Top Badger mentions.

There is something in Suella Braverman's observation - she is former Attorney General - that the legislation didn't have sufficient "nevertheless" statements (other words like "regardless" are also used) to make it court-proof. With such statements, you prevent other law, confounding what you are trying to achieve with a new law, by explicitly disapplying that other law. A "nevertheless" in an act could have blocked this ground of judgment. They already have a "nevertheless" to disapply any consideration from the Human Rights Act to such international transfers, for example.

The letter Braverman sent makes it look like she was alert to this specific issue a year ago, and wanted a "nevertheless" to cover it, and thought she had an agreement that it would be provided. At least she is saying that, we don't know if it is true. But suppose it is true. One possibility here is that Sunak wasn't really comfortable with the Rwanda policy, and wanted to make it go away, and thought being blocked by the Supreme Court might be a clever trick to achieve that. If the court blocks it, you can say, you tried, but the court stopped it. What Braverman is saying here is it really was in his control, they knew perfectly well this could happen and knew perfectly well how to stop it. So Sunak isn't an "authentic Conservative" because he wasn't really in favour of it. Whether this is all true is another matter. But for her it drives a convenient wedge between the hard right where she sits, what she calls "authentic Conservatives" - and the slightly less hard right where Sunak sits.

I suspect this all goes over the head of most voters, who will decide according to their general perception of the two people involved. But inside the Conservative Party, I think Braverman has raised a stand that Sunak is not totally loyal to the hard right cause. They are not a majority in the parliamentary conservative party, but have enough support to hold the party hostage on various things. Clearly they are still trying to get one of their own to become leader.

[IvanV]

Joshua Rosenberg on A Lawyer Writes describes the worries I deduced from Cruella's letter as "magical thinking". Makes me a bit more optimistic.

He says no amount of "nevertheless"-es can supersede Britain's obligation to comply with international law.

And, ironically, it was Cruella herself who identified that it doesn't matter what legal form you put the obligation on Rwanda not to deport our deportees - an obligation that they already have in our agreement with them - that won't change the court's decision if they have no confidence in Rwanda to comply.

[Grumble]

I struggle to understand how we managed to arrive at Rwanda as the dumping ground of choice, but I’m not sure there is anything to understand.

[bagpuss]

I struggle to understand how we managed to arrive at Rwanda as the dumping ground of choice, but I’m not sure there is anything to understand.

I'm assuming that someone was friends with someone. That's usually a safe bet with this bunch.