‘The UK government’s controversial Rwanda legislation that deems the African country as a safe place to deport people to is fundamentally incompatible with Britain’s human rights obligations and places it in breach of international law, according to a damning parliamentary report.’
The Guardian, 12th February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘International students accused of cheating at English-language tests are planning a fresh push to clear their names 10 years on, with thousands thought to have been victims of a gross miscarriage of justice.’
The Guardian, 11th February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘An Italian man has been removed from the UK despite holding a Home Office certificate explicitly stating he has a right to travel in and out of the country while officials process his application to live and work in the country post-Brexit.’
The Guardian, 8th February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The UK government’s proposals to send asylum seekers arriving to the UK onto Rwanda continue to spark intense opposition.’
EIN Blog, 6th February 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Baroness Hale revealed her “true colours” by voting against the Rwanda Bill, according to former leader of the Commons Jacob-Rees-Mogg, who yesterday called for the “politicised” Supreme Court to be emasculated.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th February 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Home Office has threatened a Portuguese plumber who has lived legally in the UK for more than 20 years with deportation after he struggled with his application to remain in the country.’
The Guardian, 4th February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A member of the Windrush generation who was wrongly denied entry to the UK and sent to Jamaica has been granted a judicial review of his case.’
The Independent, 4th February 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘As the dust settles on another year, it is (just about still) time to look back over the year gone to review some of the most dramatic, legally interesting or impactful cases of the year gone by. As ever, this is only a selection of the top cases of the year, but as a whole they reveal yet another year in which the courts have been drawn into the centre of the most important social and political debates of the society in which they find themselves.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th January 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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).’
EIN Blog, 23rd January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘A leading lawyer who sits in the Lords has warned that Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill is “a step toward totalitarianism”.’
The Independent, 18th January 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘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.’
EIN Blog, 16th January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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.’
The Guardian, 11th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
EIN Blog, 27th November 2023
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘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.’
EIN Blog, 27th November 2023
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘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.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 22nd November 2023
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 21st November 2023
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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”.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd November 2023
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th November 2023
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024