Lawyer for refugees facing removal to Rwanda says U.K. gov't doesn't respect rule of law
The 1st deportation flight to Rwanda was halted. But the government vowed to carry on with the plan
A lawyer for some of the U.K. asylum seekers facing forced relocation to Rwanda says the British government should halt the controversial plan until the courts can review its legality.
The U.K. struck a deal with Rwanda in April to send tens of thousands of asylum seekers to the East African country to have their claims processed.
The British government says this will save U.K. taxpayers money and deter people from making dangerous trips across the English Channel from France. Critics, including the United Nations, have blasted the deal as unethical and in violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the U.K. is a signatory.
The first planeload of people was set to take off for Rwanda on Tuesday night. But the migrants onboard were temporarily saved by a last-minute ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.
In its decision regarding one of the men on the plane, the European court said he should not be removed until after a full court trial in London next month rules on whether the plan is legal.
The British government, however, has vowed to carry on with the deportations regardless. Lawyer Jed Pennington of Wilson Solicitors LLP says that flies in the face of the rule of law.
Here is part of Pennington's conversation with As It Happens guest host Catherine Cullen.
Mr. Pennington, one of your [law firm's] clients was supposed to be one of the seven people on that plane taking off for Rwanda yesterday. How is he feeling about this last-minute decision?
He's obviously feeling very relieved. I mean, he was taken to the airport and was in the process of being taken onto the airplane when he learned that he was to be taken off. And he was very upset.
Upset in what way?
He was upset and scared about being taken to Rwanda, a country that he's never been to [and] he perceives as an unsafe country. And [he has] been through ... quite a traumatic personal history
I know you represent several clients who were initially supposed to be on this larger plane-load of people headed to Rwanda. Can you give me a sense of what these people's stories are?
They have all been through some form of trauma. Some have histories of torture in their country of origin. Some have been exploited and ill-treated by people smugglers along the way to the U.K. All of them have experienced a traumatic journey, some of them crossing the Mediterranean in a boat, and all of them across the English Channel on a boat.
You know well that one of the arguments that your government has made in favour of this policy is looking at examples like that horrifying example in November where 27 people died travelling between France and the U.K. They say a measure like this is necessary in order to stop that kind of loss of life, to stop human trafficking. What is your response?
What I would say about that is that there are a couple things they could do. One of them is to provide some form of … safe and legal route for people to apply for asylum in the U.K.
And the other is to make some sort of arrangement with European countries — which the United Kingdom had when we were in the European Union — to return asylum seekers to European countries where there's evidence, such as a fingerprint match, that they've been in those countries.
Yet your government remains determined to continue. And in fact, yesterday, [U.K. Prime Minister] Boris Johnson blamed lawyers for being "very good at picking up ways of trying to stop the government from upholding what we think is a sensible law." What went through your mind when you heard that?
When the Supreme Court looked at this case... they acknowledged that lawyers were simply doing their job, which is to protect the interests of their clients, protect their clients from suffering, from unlawful action by the government. And if the scheme is, as we think, contrary to the law, then the government really can't complain about it.
Watch: 1st flight to Rwanda doesn't get off the ground:
And yet the government has floated the prospect of pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights if that's what's needed in order to make this possible. What do you think of that?
I think that would be a disastrous step. I think it would place the union between England and the other countries that make up the U.K., particularly Scotland and Northern Ireland, at risk because the European Convention is part of those constitutional arrangements. It would make the U.K. an international pariah. I think the only other state who recently withdrew from the European Convention is Russia.
Around the world, people are watching the back and forth of this, the uncertainty of how it will all work out. What do you think the implications are for other governments who might be watching this in terms of whether or not they might choose to pursue some sort of similar arrangement?
I think it's very worrying because the Refugee Convention was part of the post-Second World War settlement. And the U.K. was one of the leading countries in establishing it. And it is ... respected in terms of, historically, how refugees are treated.
And yet right now things remain in a sort of limbo because of this court ruling. Do you expect that this particular issue that held up yesterday's flight will take days to be sorted out? Weeks? How long will this next step take?
I don't think the proceedings are going to be resolved quickly, unless the European Court changes its decision. I struggle to see how the government is going to proceed with removals [and] deportations to Rwanda in the meantime.
What are you telling clients who might be subject to this policy … at the moment?
It's very unclear what we can tell them.
We can tell them that at the moment it looks like the government isn't going to be able to remove them until the legal proceedings have concluded. And in the meantime, they'll have to be released on bail, so allowed out of detention. All of the ones, I think, that were on the flight are still in immigration detention in the U.K.
In terms of the broader fight, [U.K.] Home Secretary Priti Patel has said, "We will not be deterred from doing the right thing in delivering our plans to control our nation's borders and preparation for the next flight begins now." What does that tell you about the work that you and your colleagues have ahead of you?
I think we're going to continue to be very busy, unfortunately. I think any government that had proper respect for the rule of law would not try to continue with flights until the legality of the scheme has been finally decided upon by the court.
Written by Sheena Goodyear with files from Reuters. Interview produced by Kevin Robertson. Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.
