Connect with us

Published

on

Rishi Sunak has said he will introduce emergency legislation to make sure his Rwanda plan is not blocked again – and insisted “flights will be heading off in the spring as planned”.

After the Supreme Court ruled the flagship asylum policy is unlawful, the prime minister said he had been working on a new international treaty with the East African nation to address the judges’ concerns and ensure it is “safe”.

He said: “This will provide a guarantee in law that those who are relocated from the UK to Rwanda will be protected against removal from Rwanda and it will make clear that we will bring back anyone if ordered to do so by a court.

“We will finalise this treaty in light of today’s judgment and ratify it without delay.”

Politics latest: Labour frontbencher resigns over Starmer’s Gaza stance

Mr Sunak insisted the legislation would “end the merry-go-round” of legal challenges that have stopped flights from taking off since the controversial plan was announced in April last year.

The policy would see anyone arriving in the UK by unauthorised means deported to Rwanda to claim asylum there – not the UK.

“We need to end the merry-go-round,” Mr Sunak told a Downing Street news conference.

“I said I was going to fundamentally change our country, and I meant it.”

The PM said he would be taking the “extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation”, which will “enable parliament to confirm that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe”.

But he also acknowledged that even if domestic laws are changed, the government could still face legal challenges from the European Court of Human Rights and vowed: “I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.”

“If the Strasbourg court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of parliament, I am prepared to do what is necessary to get flights off,” he said.

Read more:
Why Sunak’s promise looks extremely hard to keep | Beth Rigby analysis
Explainer – how did the government policy end up in the courts?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Supreme Court rules Rwanda plan unlawful

In its ruling on Wednesday, the UK’s highest court said refugees sent to Rwanda would be at “real risk” of being returned to their country of origin, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not – breaching international law.

It has fuelled calls from some Tory MPs to pull the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in order to push forward with the plan – something Mr Sunak has so far resisted doing.

An eleventh-hour injunction from the ECHR stopped the first scheduled flights from taking off to Rwanda’s capital Kigali last June, and no one has been deported since.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Asylum seekers celebrate Rwanda verdict

The Supreme Court judges said it is not only the ECHR which is relevant to their ruling, pointing out that the UK is signed up “other international treaties which also prohibit the return of asylum seekers to their countries of origin without a proper examination of their claims”.

What happens now?


Sam Coates

Sam Coates

Deputy political editor

@SamCoatesSky

The prime minister set out a two part plan – first, putting the Rwanda agreement into a treaty, ensuring once asylum seekers are taken to the country, they will stay there.

But it was the second bit that we didn’t know was coming that could prove controversial – the emergency legislation.

It sounds as if the PM is planning to pass a law that declares Rwanda a ‘safe’ country and that cannot be challenged in the UK courts on the basis of the European Human Rights Convention and other international human rights laws.

In effect, the UK courts would have to accept that judgment as parliament is sovereign. So, providing this legislation doesn’t get gummed up in the House of Lords, that’s the domestic courts sorted.

However, that legislation would not override the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

An asylum seeker would be able to take their claim to that court, which would then make its own judgment on whether Rwanda is ‘safe’, as the UK government would have declared.

Even before they have ruled, the Strasbourg court could issue a “rule 39” order to block flights. It sounds from the news conference as if Sunak would simply ignore that if it came again. This means there’s a much higher chance flights to Rwanda might be able to take off.

A judgment from the Strasbourg court that Rwanda is not, in fact, a safe country would in time likely set up a huge political and legal battle for the government.

Would they simply ignore the ruling and send flights to Rwanda anyway? Is the government happy to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights? Would we be expelled or leave?

Big questions, but perhaps ones not settled this side of an election. Which might just be the point.

Mr Sunak was not clear about how he thinks he can circumvent human rights laws and international conventions.

However he said he was confident that his new plan will work.

The PM said he is “delivering” on his pledge to stop the boats, and the new treaty is “ready to go” to reassure the courts.

“We will clear the remaining barriers and flights will be heading off in the spring as planned,” he added.

The news conference came shortly after new snap polling from YouGov show most people believe the policy should now be scrapped.

However, some Tory MPs want Mr Sunak to go further and disapply human rights laws so the scheme can go ahead.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rwanda ruling ‘massive blow’ to PM

Suella Braverman, who was sacked as home secretary on Monday, has called for emergency legislation to “block off the ECHR and other routes of legal challenge”.

Conservative Party deputy chairman Lee Anderson said the government should “ignore the laws” and send migrants back the same day they arrive in the UK.

The New Conservatives, a right-wing pressure group of MPs, said Mr Sunak’s new legislation “must disapply the Human Rights Act and give effect to the policy *notwithstanding* the ECHR and Refugee Convention”.

“It must restate the power of Govt to disregard interim rulings from Strasbourg,” they posted on X.

Britain is expected to pay Rwanda more money for the new treaty, having already handed over £140m under the plans that have seen not one asylum seeker removed since it was announced.

Earlier, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer demanded an apology to the nation from Mr Sunak for wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash on the “ridiculous, pathetic spectacle”.

Continue Reading

UK

Jury shown CCTV and bodycam footage of brothers allegedly assaulting police at Manchester Airport

Published

on

By

Jury shown CCTV and bodycam footage of brothers allegedly assaulting police at Manchester Airport

CCTV and police bodycam footage allegedly showing three police officers being assaulted at Manchester Airport has been played to jurors.

Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and his brother, Muhammad Amaad, 26, are said to have struck out after police were called to the airport on 23 July last year, following Amaaz allegedly headbutting a customer at a Starbucks in Terminal 2.

Minutes later, three police officers approached the defendants at the paystation in the terminal’s car park.

A jury at Liverpool Crown Court today watched CCTV footage from opposite angles, which captured what the prosecution says was a “high level of violence” being used by the siblings.

The prosecution says Amaaz resisted as officers tried to move him to arrest him, and Amaad then intervened.

Junior counsel Adam Birkby suggested Amaaz threw 10 punches, including one to the face of PC Lydia Ward, which knocked her to the floor.

His brother Amaad is then said to have aimed six punches at firearms officer PC Zachary Marsden.

Amaaz also allegedly kicked PC Marsden and struck firearms officer PC Ellie Cook twice with his elbow.

He is said to have punched PC Marsden from behind and had a hold of him, before PC Cook discharged her Taser.

Human Rights lawyer Aamer Anwar (centre) arrives with Mohammed Fahir Amaaz (left) and Muhammed Amaad (right) at Liverpool Crown Court, where
Image:
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz (left) and Muhammed Amaad (right) arrive at the court with their lawyer. Pic: PA

The bodycam and CCTV footage, submitted as evidence by the prosecution, allegedly shows the officers’ arrival in the Terminal 2 car park and their attempts to arrest the siblings, as well as their exchanges with them.

PC Ward can be heard saying “Oi, you b*****d” in footage from her bodycam, the prosecution evidence appears to show.

She then appears to fall to the floor and screams.

PC Cook, who is pointing her Taser at one of the defendants, then allegedly says: “Stay on the floor, stay on the floor whatever you do.”

“Get back, get back,” PC Ward appears to say.

The bodycam footage, shown to the jury by the prosecution, shows PC Marsden, who is also pointing his Taser, appear to approach the defendant who is lying on the ground and kick out at him.

Mr Birkby said: “Mr Amaaz, while prone, lifts his head towards the officers. PC Marsden kicks Mr Amaaz around the head area.

“PC Marsden stamps his foot towards the crown of Mr Amaaz’s head area but doesn’t appear to connect with Mr Amaaz.”

Amaaz denies three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the three police officers and one count of assault to Abdulkareem Ismaeil, the customer at Starbucks.

Amaad denies one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to PC Marsden.

Continue Reading

UK

Stephen Doohan: Paramedic who secretly gave pregnant woman abortion drug jailed for more than 10 years

Published

on

By

Stephen Doohan: Paramedic who secretly gave pregnant woman abortion drug jailed for more than 10 years

A paramedic who secretly gave a pregnant woman an abortion drug during sex has been jailed for more than 10 years. 

Stephen Doohan, 33, was married when he met the woman on holiday in Spain in 2021 and began a long-distance relationship.

The High Court in Glasgow heard how the victim travelled to Edinburgh in March 2023 to visit Doohan after learning she was pregnant.

During consensual sex, Doohan twice secretly administered the tablets which led to the woman suffering a miscarriage.

In May, Doohan pleaded guilty to sexual assault and causing the woman to have an abortion. He returned to the dock on Monday where he was jailed for 10 years and six months.

Lord Colbeck said Doohan caused “long-term psychological injury” to his victim.

The judge said: “You put her through considerable pain over a number of days and left her facing a lifetime of pain and loss.”

More on Edinburgh

The court heard how the woman found tablets hidden under the mattress after she became suspicious over Doohan’s behaviour in bed.

Lord Colbeck said: “The complainer then carried out an internet search for abortion tablets and confronted you over your actions.”

After the woman fell ill, Doohan convinced her to lie to medics at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh amid fears he would be arrested if she told the truth.

The victim later attended another hospital with her sister and was told she was having a miscarriage.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said Doohan sent the woman gifts including perfume, socks, facial cleansing oil, money to get her hair done and bought tickets for them to attend a football match.

Read more from Sky News:
Mother guilty of murdering three people with poisonous mushrooms
Israeli soldier describes arbitrary killing of civilians in Gaza

The woman complained to the Scottish Ambulance Service in May 2023, sparking an investigation.

The court heard that on 14 March 2023, the day the woman told Doohan she was pregnant, the paramedic used a work intranet to search for abortion drugs.

Lord Colbeck said: “You planned out what you did to your victim using resources available to you as a paramedic.”

In addition to his prison sentence, Doohan was also added to the sex offenders’ register and banned from contacting his victim.

Fiona Kirkby, procurator fiscal for high court sexual offences, said: “Stephen Doohan’s calculated and heinous actions caused the loss of the victim’s pregnancy, robbing her of plans she had for the future.

“He has now been held accountable for this fundamental breach of trust.

“While offences like this are thankfully rare, I hope this prosecution sends a clear message to all those who seek to inflict sexual harm towards women.

“Our thoughts remain with the victim, who must be commended for reporting her experience and seeking justice.

“We recognise that reporting sexual offending can be difficult but would urge anyone affected to come forward and seek support when they feel ready to do so.”

The Scottish Ambulance Service branded it an “appalling case”.

A spokesperson added: “We recognise the courage it must have taken for the victim to come forward and speak out.

“As soon as we learned of these very serious allegations and charges, we immediately took action, providing ongoing support to her whilst liaising with Police Scotland throughout the investigation.

“We know nothing will change what has happened to the victim and all we can hope is this sentence provides some comfort to them.”

Continue Reading

UK

UK farmers have ‘nothing more to give’ as they fear govt will compromise welfare in US-UK trade deal

Published

on

By

UK farmers have 'nothing more to give' as they fear govt will compromise welfare in US-UK trade deal

UK farmers have “nothing more to give” as they fear the government will use agriculture to further reduce US tariffs in a trade deal with the White House.

The UK is trying to reduce steel tariffs to zero, from a current reduced rate of 25%, but Downing Street refused to confirm if it was confident ahead of Donald Trump’s deadline of 9 July.

Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), said UK agriculture had already been used to reduce Trump-imposed tariffs on cars but any other concessions would have serious repercussions for farmers, food security and the UK’s high animal welfare standards.

Politics latest: Downing Street refuses to rule out wealth tax

He told Sky News: “It just feels like we, as the agricultural sector, had to shoulder the responsibility to reduce the tariffs on cars from 25%.

“We can’t do it anymore, we have nothing more to give.

“It’s clear the steel quotas and tariffs aren’t sorted yet, so we just want to be very clear with the government: if they’re sitting around the negotiating table – which we understand they are – they can’t expect agriculture to give any more.”

More on Donald Trump

Tom Bradshaw, the head of the NFU, speaking to Sky News
Image:
Tom Bradshaw, the head of the NFU, said farmers cannot give any more

‘Massively undermine our standards’

Since 30 June, the US has been able to import 13,000 tonnes of hormone-free British beef without tariffs under a deal made earlier this year, which farmers feel was to reduce the car import levy Mr Trump imposed.

The UK was also given tariff-free access to 1.4bn litres of US ethanol, which farmers say will put the UK’s bioethanol and associated sectors under pressure.

Allowing lower US food standards would “massively undermine our standards” and would mean fewer sales to the European Union where food standards are also high, Mr Bradshaw said.

It would leave British farmers competing on a playing field that is “anything but fair”, he said, because US food can be produced – and sold – much cheaper due to low welfare which could see a big reduction in investment in UK farms, food security and the environment.

Read more:
Trump tariff deadline extended as new threats issued to BRICs nations

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Can the UK avoid steel tariffs?

‘The US will push hard for more access’

He said the US narrative has always suggested they want access to British agriculture products “as a start and they’ll negotiate for more”.

“The narrative from the White House on 8 May, when a US-UK trade deal was announced, was all about further access to our agriculture products – it was very different to what our government was saying,” he added.

“So far, the UK has stood firm and upheld our higher welfare standards, but the US will push very hard to have further access.

“No country in the world has proved they can reduce the 10% tariffs further.”

US poultry welfare is lower than the UK, with much more intensive farming that means the meat has to be washed with antimicrobials. Pic: AP
Image:
US poultry welfare is lower than the UK, with much more intensive farming that means the meat has to be washed with antimicrobials. Pic: AP

US ‘will target poultry and pork’

The Essex farmer said he expects the US to push “very hard” to get the UK to lower its standards on poultry and pork, specifically.

US poultry is often washed with antimicrobials, including chlorine, in an attempt to wash off high levels of bacteria caused by poor hygiene, antibiotic use and low animal welfare conditions not allowed in UK farming.

US pig rearing methods are also quite different, with intensive farming and the use of feed additive ractopamine legal, with both banned in the UK.

A government spokesperson told Sky News: “We regularly speak to businesses across the UK to understand the impact of tariffs and will only ever act in the national interest.

“Our Plan for Change has delivered a deal which will open up exclusive access for UK beef farmers to the US market for the first time ever and all agricultural imports coming to the UK will have to meet our high SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) standards.”

Continue Reading

Trending