Connect with us

Published

on

A government plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful, the High Court has ruled.

Lord Justice Lewis said the controversial policy, introduced under Boris Johnson, was “consistent with the refugee convention”.

However, he said the home secretary should look at people’s “particular circumstances” before deporting them to the central African country.

Politics live: Health secretary says he is keen to talk to unions

The senior judge ruled the first people who were set to be sent to Rwanda had not had their circumstances “properly considered” by the person then in post, Priti Patel.

And as a result, their cases would be referred back to the current home secretary, Suella Braverman, “for her to consider afresh”.

Ms Braverman – who will give a statement on the judgment to the Commons later, welcomed the decision, saying the “ground-breaking” agreement with Rwanda would “provide individuals relocated with support to build new lives there, while disrupting the business model of people smuggling gangs putting lives at risk through dangerous and illegal small boat crossings”.

More on Rwanda

And Ms Patel also praised the ruling, adding: “No single policy will stop the Channel crossings, but this important policy will save lives, help break the business model of the criminal gangs & prevent asylum abuse.”

However, charities and campaign groups vowed to challenge the decision to ensure “people are treated with dignity and respect”.

The government announced its Rwanda policy back in April, which would see some asylum seekers who had reached the UK via small boat Channel crossings deported to the country to have their cases processed.

Ms Patel said it would help deter people from making the dangerous journey, but human rights campaigners, charities and opposition parties condemned the plan as inhumane.

The first flight was set to take off in June with four people on board, but was halted after a number of legal challenges and the European Court of Human Rights ruling the plan carried “a real risk of irreversible harm”.

However, both Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss insisted they would push ahead with the policy when they took the keys to Number 10.

‘Particular circumstances’

Eight people brought their cases to the High Court to fight against the decision to send them to Rwanda, giving the UK’s most senior judges the opportunity to rule on the overall policy, as well as the individuals.

Their lawyers argued the plans were unlawful and that Rwanda “tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”.

But representatives from the Home Office argued the agreement between the UK and the country provided assurances that everyone sent there would have a “safe and effective” refugee status determination procedure.

In a summary of his ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Lewis said: “The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom.

“On the evidence before this court, the government has made arrangements with the government of Rwanda which are intended to ensure that the asylum claims of people relocated to Rwanda are properly determined in Rwanda.”

However, he added: “The home secretary must consider properly the circumstances of each individual claimant. The home secretary must decide if there is anything about each person’s particular circumstances which means that his asylum claim should be determined in the United Kingdom or whether there are other reasons why he should not be relocated to Rwanda.

“The home secretary has not properly considered the circumstances of the eight individual claimants whose cases we have considered.

“For that reason, the decisions in those cases will be set aside and their cases will be referred back to the home secretary for her to consider afresh.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Boris Johnson announced the Rwanda plan back in April when he was prime minister.

The chief executive of the Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, said he was “disappointed” by the overall ruling, saying it would “damage the UK’s reputation as a country that values human rights”.

He added: “Treating people who are in search of safety like human cargo and shipping them off to another country is a cruel policy that will cause great human suffering.

“The scheme is wrong in principle and unworkable in practice.”

The chief executive of migrant charity Choose Love, Josie Naughton, also said the decision by the court “flies in the face of international commitments and accountability”.

She added it would “tear apart families, prolong persecution and put victims of torture and trauma in danger once again”.

‘Safety and opportunity’

Labour’s shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, did not argue against the decision, but called the Rwanda scheme “unworkable, unethical [and] extortionately expensive”, adding it was “a damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking to go after the criminal gangs and sort out the asylum system”.

The Liberal Democrats echoed the sentiment, with MP Alistair Carmichael saying it was “immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers”.

He added: “It will do nothing to stop dangerous Channel crossings or combat people smuggling and human trafficking; instead it will give criminal gangs more power and profits.”

But it was welcomed by the Rwandan government, with spokeswoman Yolande Makolo saying: “We welcome this decision and stand ready to offer asylum seekers and migrants safety and the opportunity to build a new life in Rwanda.

“This is a positive step in our quest to contribute innovative, long-term solutions to the global migration crisis.”

Lord Justice Lewis said a further hearing would take place in mid-January to handle the consequences of the judgment, including costs and applications to go to the Court of Appeal.

Continue Reading

UK

UK on ‘slippery slope’ to ‘death on demand’, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood warns ahead of assisted dying vote

Published

on

By

UK on 'slippery slope' to 'death on demand', Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood warns ahead of assisted dying vote

The UK is on a “slippery slope towards death on demand”, according to the justice secretary ahead of a historic Commons vote on assisted dying.

In a letter to her constituents, Shabana Mahmood said she was “profoundly concerned” about the legislation.

“Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign,” she wrote.

“I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away.

“The state should never offer death as a service.”

Analysis: Justice secretary’s intervention is potentially embarrassing for the PM

On 29 November, MPs will be asked to consider whether to legalise assisted dying, through Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Details of the legislation were published last week, including confirmation the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Minister ‘leans’ to assisted dying bill

Ms Mahmood, however, said “predictions about life expectancy are often inaccurate”.

“Doctors can only predict a date of death, with any real certainty, in the final days of life,” she said. “The judgment as to who can and cannot be considered for assisted suicide will therefore be subjective and imprecise.”

Read more: Gordon Brown says assisted dying should not be legalised

Under the Labour MP’s proposals, two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge must give their approval.

The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Details of end of life bill released

Read more: Where does the cabinet stand on assisted dying?

However, Ms Mahmood said she was concerned the legislation could “pressure” some into ending their lives.

“It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald,” she wrote.

“In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves.”

Kim Leadbeater waits to present the Assisted Dying Bill. File pic: House of Commons/Reuters
Image:
Kim Leadbeater waits to present the Assisted Dying Bill. File pic: House of Commons/Reuters

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who put forward the bill, said some of the points Ms Mahmood raised have been answered “in the the thorough drafting and presentation of the bill”.

“The strict eligibility criteria make it very clear that we are only talking about people who are already dying,” she said.

“That is why the bill is called the ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’; its scope cannot be changed and clearly does not include any other group of people.

“The bill would give dying people the autonomy, dignity and choice to shorten their death if they wish.”

In response to concerns Ms Mahmood raised about patients being coerced into choosing assisted death, Ms Leadbeater said she has consulted widely with doctors and judges.

“Those I have spoken to tell me that they are well equipped to ask the right questions to detect coercion and to ascertain a person’s genuine wishes. It is an integral part of their work,” she said.

In an increasingly fractious debate around the topic, multiple Labour MPs have voiced their concerns.

In a letter to ministers on 3 October, the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case confirmed “the prime minister has decided to set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill” and that the government would “therefore remain neutral on the passage of the bill and on the matter of assisted dying”.

Continue Reading

UK

Justice secretary’s assisted dying intervention is explosive – and potentially embarrassing for PM

Published

on

By

Justice secretary's assisted dying intervention is explosive - and potentially embarrassing for PM

With six days to go before Friday’s historic Commons showdown on assisted dying, it’s the opponents who are turning up the heat.

The explosive attack on the bill by Shabana Mahmood follows the poignant and personal plea from Gordon Brown to MPs to reject the bill.

We knew the justice secretary is opposed to the bill. She has already made that clear. But her attack on it, in a letter to constituents, is brutal.

Read more: UK on ‘slippery slope’ to ‘death on demand’, warns justice secretary

She talks about a “slippery slope towards death on demand”. Savage. The state should “never offer death as a service”, she says. Chilling.

So much for Sir Keir Starmer attempting to cool the temperature in the row by urging cabinet ministers, whatever their view, to stop inflaming or attempting to influence the debate.

Ms Mahmood talks, as other opponents have, about pressure on the elderly, sick or disabled who feel they have “become too much of a burden to their family”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Details of end of life bill released

She hits out at a “lack of legal safeguards” in the bill and pressure on someone into ending their life “by those acting with malign intent”.

Malign intent? Hey! That’s quite an assertion from a secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor who’s been urged by the PM to tone down her language.

It’s claimed that Sir Keir ticked off Wes Streeting, the health secretary, after he publicly opposed the bill and launched an analysis of the costs of implementing it.

Read more: Where does the cabinet stand on assisted dying?

Will the justice secretary now receive a reprimand from the boss? It’s a bit late for that. Critics will also claim Sir Keir’s dithering over the bill is to blame for cabinet ministers freelancing.

Shabana Mahmood is the first elected Muslim woman to hold a cabinet post. Elected to the Commons in 2010, she was also one of the first Muslim women MPs.

She told her constituents in her letter that it’s not only for religious reasons that she’s “profoundly concerned” about the legislation, but also because of what it would mean for the role of the state.

But of course, she’s not the only senior politician with religious convictions to speak out strongly against Kim Leadbeater’s bill this weekend.

Gordon Brown. File pic: PA
Image:
Gordon Brown. File pic: PA

Gordon Brown, son of the manse, who was strongly influenced by his father, a Church of Scotland minister, wrote about his opposition in a highly emotional article in The Guardian.

He spoke about the pain of losing his 10-day-old baby daughter Jennifer, born seven weeks prematurely and weighing just 2lb 4oz, in January 2002, after she suffered a brain haemorrhage on day four of her short life.

Read more: Gordon Brown says assisted dying should not be legalised

Mr Brown said that tragedy convinced him of the value and imperative of good end-of-life care, not the case for assisted dying. His powerful voice will strongly influence many Labour MPs.

And what of Kim Leadbeater? It’s looking increasingly as though she’s now being hung out to dry by the government, after initially being urged by the government to choose assisted dying after topping the private members bill ballot.

All of which will encourage Sir Keir’s critics to claim he looks weak. It is, or course, a private members bill and a free vote, which makes the outcome on Friday unpredictable.

But the dramatic interventions of the current lord chancellor and the former Labour prime minister are hugely significant, potentially decisive – and potentially embarrassing for a prime minister who appears to be losing control of the assisted dying debate.

Continue Reading

UK

Max Verstappen wins Formula One world title for a fourth straight year

Published

on

By

Max Verstappen wins Formula One world title for a fourth straight year

Red Bull driver Max Verstappen has won the Formula One world title for a fourth straight year.

His victory was confirmed after finishing fifth at the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Mercedes’ George Russell won the race.

Max Verstappen celebrates his win. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Pic: Reuters

The 27-year-old Dutchman becomes just the sixth driver in Formula One history to win four titles or more, after outscoring Lando Norris who took the chequered flag in only sixth.

Verstappen is now guaranteed the world crown with two races still remaining, with his domination cementing his name among Formula One’s greats.

“Oh my God man,” said an emotional Verstappen after securing the world title. “What a season. Four times. It was a little bit more difficult than last year.”

Lewis Hamilton raced back from 10th to second place to complete an impressive one-two finish for Mercedes. Carlos Sainz finished third for Ferrari, one place ahead of his team-mate Charles Leclerc.

Russell’s third victory was the most dominant of his career so far, crossing the line 7.3 seconds clear of Hamilton.

More on Formula 1

Michael Schumacher and Lewis Hamilton have each won a record seven, with 1950s Argentine legend Juan-Manuel Fangio on five ahead of Alain Prost, Sebastian Vettel and now Verstappen on four.

Having won every Drivers’ Championship since claiming his first in the controversial end to the 2021 season when he beat Hamilton in deeply contentious circumstances, Verstappen now joins Hamilton, Fangio and Vettel in winning four titles consecutively.

Only Schumacher has achieved a run of five.

Red Bull's principal sponsor Christian Horner on the Las Vegas Strip Circuit. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Red Bull’s principal sponsor Christian Horner on the Las Vegas Strip Circuit. Pic: Reuters

The team were hit by controversy earlier this season, with Red Bull’s principal sponsor, Christian Horner, facing allegations of controlling behaviour by a female staff member. Horner, who denied the accusations, was cleared, and a subsequent appeal was thrown out.

Horner congratulated Verstappen on the radio, telling him: “Max Verstappen you are a four-time world champion. That is a phenomenal, phenomenal achievement. You can be incredibly proud of yourself.”

Red Bull is on course to finish third in the constructors’ championship this year. This century only Hamilton in 2008 with McLaren, and Verstappen in 2021, have won the drivers’ title when their team did not win the constructors’ championship.

Continue Reading

Trending