Emergency legislation in Rwanda cannot go further, four leading lawyers have warned.
The four QCs - including Geoffrey Cox, the former attorney general - say attempts to tighten the Rwanda law risk violating international law, forcing Rwanda to abandon the plan and ultimately destroying parliament's sovereignty could undermine.
Their support, in an online letter published in full below, will be seized upon by the Prime Minister as he seeks to push back on demands from MPs on the right of the Conservative Party who want to further restrict the right of illegal migrants to face individual challenges. to avert. until their deportation to Rwanda.
The bill bans "systemic" legal challenges claiming that Rwanda is unsafe as a country and does not apply UK human rights law, but illegal migrants can still appeal if they can demonstrate that they individually face an immediate risk of serious and irreversible harm if they are deported to Rwanda - and take their case to Strasbourg.
Mr Sunak has claimed that successful individual claims will be "vanishingly" rare and that going further would jeopardize Rwanda's entire deportation program as the African country has warned it will withdraw if Britain breaks international law.
'It goes as far as it can within the law'
In their letter, the four - including Lord Sandhurst, a former president of the Bar Association, Lord Speaight, a former senior officer of the Bar Association, and Charles Banner, QC - said: "It goes as far as the law allows is to eliminate legal challenges. to removal, and closes off the vast majority of grounds for challenge."
They warned that the legal consequences of further exemptions - or "expulsions" - from domestic or international law would be threefold, including violating treaty obligations under the Refugee Convention, which could jeopardize the Rwanda plan.
They have said that denying illegal migrants the right of appeal would breach Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) - the right to a remedy - and could bog down the Rwanda Bill in lengthy lawsuits in Britain and Strasbourg, where judges would likely expedite a lawsuit against Britain.
The story continues
The bill currently allows individual claims that migrants are at risk of serious and irreversible harm, a threshold that lawyers say will mean only a few will be successful, and only on medical or political grounds, such as a specific personal threat from the Rwandan government .
"Are MPs prepared to argue that a pregnant woman in an advanced stage should not be able to challenge her removal to Rwanda, or that a patient with a rare form of cancer that cannot be treated in Rwanda should not have the opportunity need to submit his medical records?" they asked.
"These may sound like extreme cases, but that is precisely because the bill as currently drafted only allows claims to succeed in extreme situations such as these."
A leading Tory rebel said: "They have misunderstood the nature of the individual claims - anyone with a claimed mental illness can block their removal. First on whether they are fit to fly and then with the court to assess whether they face serious and irreversible harm, which is now a much lower threshold due to the Supreme Court defeat."
It is understood that senior lawyers who have been advising the government are concerned that the Home Office may not be able to process asylum cases quickly and efficiently enough to prevent delays clogging the courts and hampering deportations.
The QCs appeared to acknowledge the concerns, but said: "Continued recruitment of additional immigration judges, in addition to tribunal rules enforcing procedural rigor, may facilitate the expeditious determination of such claims."
They warned that the courts could even challenge the bill's assumption that Parliament is sovereign by denying asylum seekers the right to appeal. "If for the first time the Supreme Court were to strike down or disapply a law on domestic constitutional grounds, it would be impossible to put the constitutional genie back in the bottle," the QCs said.
Those who argue for more must face the legal consequences
The Rwanda Security Bill is undoubtedly the most robust piece of immigration legislation that Parliament has ever seen. It goes as far as the law allows to eliminate legal objections to removal, and closes the vast majority of grounds for challenge. Those who argue for further impeachments must face the legal consequences of doing so, of which there are three.
Firstly, the Government would have no respectable legal argument for claiming that the Bill complies with the UK's treaty obligations under the Refugee Convention. The Rwandan government has made it clear that it considers compliance with international law to be of paramount importance, not least because it wants to replicate its British deal with other countries.
Secondly, this would put Britain in clear breach of Article 13 of the ECHR (the right to an effective remedy) for those who sincerely claim that, even though Rwanda is generally safe, they face serious and irreversible damage due to their own specific problems. circumstances (e.g. medical reasons mean that the return journey would be a threat to their life; or they face a specific personal threat from the Rwandan government).
The threshold for such claims under the Bill is very high and we expect very few claims to be successful. The continued recruitment of additional immigration judges, in addition to tribunal rules enforcing procedural rigor, may facilitate the expeditious determination of such claims. On the other hand, if there is no room for such claims at all, it is inevitable that the implementation of the bill will become bogged down in litigation, thus frustrating the goal of ensuring that flights can depart to Rwanda as quickly as possible.
Third, the assumption that Parliament is fully sovereign is just that: an assumption that the courts have long indicated could be revised in the event that Parliament did the unthinkable. Legislation mandating the removal of someone, without right of appeal, despite clear evidence that it would result in death or severe and irreversible inhumane treatment, would challenge this assumption. And if, for the first time, the Supreme Court were to strike down or disapply a law on domestic constitutional grounds, it would be impossible to put the constitutional genie back in the bottle.
The practical implications also deserve attention. Are MPs prepared to argue that a pregnant woman in advanced stages should not be able to challenge her removal to Rwanda, or that a patient with a rare cancer that cannot be treated in Rwanda should not be able to can his medical records be submitted? These may seem like extreme cases, but that is precisely because the bill as currently drafted only allows claims to succeed in extreme situations like these. Dismissing all claims would not only have legal consequences; if it were successful, it would also have serious human consequences.
Charles Banner KC, Sir Geoffrey Cox KC MP, Lord Sandhurst (Guy Mansfield KC), Anthony Speaight KC
