The government’s controversial Rwanda removals bill will become law following a parliamentary showdown that ended last night – but it remains a ‘defective, constitutionally improper piece of legislation’, the Law Society has warned.
Prime minister Rishi Sunak said this morning that passing of the ‘landmark’ legislation was ‘not just a step forward but a fundamental change in the global equation on migration’. However, Society vice-president Richard Atkinson said the bill was a ‘backward step for the rule of law and the UK’s constitutional balance’.
Atkinson said: 'The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will soon become law but it remains a defective, constitutionally improper piece of legislation. It is extremely disappointing that the sensible amendments made by peers to remove some of the bill’s worse excesses have been ignored. This bill is a backward step for the rule of law and the UK’s constitutional balance and it limits access to justice. Some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers will now be at further risk due to this fundamentally flawed bill.
‘UK government must be extremely careful about how it implements the legislation, ensuring it continues to work with the domestic courts and in line with our international obligations and commitments.’
Sunak said this morning that the government’s focus ‘is to now get flights off the ground, and I am clear that nothing will stand in our way of doing that and saving lives’.
Lawyers will be intrigued to see if the judiciary has made available the 25 courtrooms and 150 judges who Sunak said were primed to deal with any appeals quickly and decisively.
Following Sunak’s press conference, the judiciary told the Gazette: ‘The deployment of judges is a matter for the judiciary. In line with new provisions in the Illegal Migration Act, the judiciary have identified a number of first tier tribunal judges who may be asked to sit in the upper tribunal to deal with any increase in appeals that arise from the act.
'The decision to do so will be taken by the senior president of tribunals when the provisions in the act commence, taking into account the interests of justice and the need for all matters before the tribunals to be handled quickly and efficiently.’
The Judicial Office said it was central to the rule of law that decisions on deployment remained for the independent judiciary and ‘these matters should not be drawn into the political arena’.
This article is now closed for comment.
28 Readers' comments