The Daily Telegraph, August 12, Martin Howe
Once again, tragedy has struck in the Channel with the deaths of migrants crossing in small boats to reach England. This news highlights how vital it is to remove the incentives which lead people to undertake this dangerous journey. The incentives arise from the fact that the tangle of laws and treaties which apply in the UK make it virtually impossible to remove illegal migrants, however meritless their claims to asylum may be.
The Government’s solution is to remove illegal arrivals promptly to Rwanda. But in June the Court of Appeal said that would contravene Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which outlaws inhuman or degrading treatment.
The judgment would have been read with absolute astonishment by lawyers only a generation ago. Our courts, conscious of their lack of expertise in foreign relations matters, have traditionally deferred to the judgment of the executive. The UK Government’s assessment is that Rwanda would operate the asylum scheme properly, so asylum seekers transferred there would not be at risk of being returned to their home countries if they would be subjected to mistreatment there. Detailed agreements and monitoring arrangements between the UK and Rwanda would back this up.
But the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) does not agree. His agency was allowed to intervene and effectively act as a party in the case, instructing counsel and submitting evidence to the court. So our domestic judges are left acting as referees on foreign relations matters between our own Government and a UN agency which seems committed to preventing the Rwanda scheme at all costs.
Click here to read the piece in full.