After the predicted session of Commons-Lords ping pong, parliament eventually passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill on Monday. But did the prime minister’s statement earlier that day on his plans to ‘stop the boats’ spark a constitutional row with HM Judiciary?

As soon as the bill passed, Rishi Sunak said the government would begin the process of removing those identified for the first flight to central Africa. To deal with any legal cases quickly and decisively, he added, the judiciary had made available 25 courtrooms and identified 150 judges who could provide over 5,000 sitting days.

With most courts running at full capacity, we all wondered where these extra judges are coming from.

The judiciary told the Gazette that, in line with new provisions in the Illegal Migration Act, the judiciary had identified 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 Rwanda legislation.

So what makes Obiter suspect that HM Judiciary may not have been impressed with Sunak’s speech? The judiciary pointed out that it was central to the rule of law that decisions on deployment remain a matter for the independent judiciary and ‘these matters should not be drawn into the political arena’.

To misquote the saying about grand opera, it isn’t over ‘til the lady chief justice sings.

Topics