Menaka Guruswamy writes: Post-Brexit, a Britain in decline

You are well informed that since Brexit and leaving the EU, from now on, the UK is facing a recession and the cost of living crisis. Inflation It is at a maximum of 40 years. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey has pointed out that the “hole in UK labor markets” could add to inflation problems.

In the midst of this general crisis in the UK, the Court of Appeal issued a major decision on June 29, 2023. Ten individual asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania and a charity, Asylum Aid They went to court. . The asylum seekers had arrived in the UK irregularly by crossing the English Channel from France in small boats.

In April 2022, the Conservative government introduced a policy of sending some asylum seekers on “a one-way ticket to Rwanda”, as the BBC calls it. Essentially, the UK and Rwandan governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding on April 14, 2022, under which Rwanda would be treated as a “safe third country” under UK immigration laws.

Schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Applicants) Act 2004 allows the government, subject to the approval of Parliament, to designate certain countries as “safe”. Therefore, under this new policy, some who had entered the UK irregularly would be sent to Rwanda, 6,500 kilometers away, where their asylum claims would be processed.

The appellants questioned both the legality of the Rwanda policy in general and also the details of the 10 individual cases. That is the legal procedure followed in each of the 10 specific cases. The other central issue before the High Court and the Court of Appeal was whether the asylum system in Rwanda was capable of “providing reliable results”. The case was first argued before the High Court, which considered challenges both to Rwanda’s general policy and to individual cases. While rejecting the general policy challenge, it found that in all 10 specific cases, the removal to Rwanda was flawed on grounds of “procedural injustice.”

The government did not appeal the court’s findings on the 10 individual specific cases. Which is to the credit of the UK government’s litigation supervisors, given that in India, government departments will almost always appeal adverse court rulings, even if the law is completely against them.

In the Court of Appeal, the decision of the majority consisting of the Master of the Scrolls, Sir Geoffery Vos and Lord Justice Underhill is that the “deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda” are such that “there are substantial grounds to believe that a real risk that people sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when in fact they have a good asylum claim.” In that sense, Rwanda is not a “safe third country”. The conclusion is based on evidence before the High Court that “Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims was inadequate in the run-up to the conclusion of the Rwanda deal.”

The Court unanimously accepts that the “assurances given by the Rwandan government were given in good faith and were intended to remedy any flaws in its asylum processes.” However, most believe that the evidence does not establish that the changes needed by then would have been reliably made or that they would have been made at the time of the proposed removals.

Consequently, sending someone to Rwanda would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Parliament has required the government to comply with. The Court also made it clear that its decision does not imply any opinion on the political merits or otherwise of the Rwandan policy. The Court notes that “those are entirely a matter of the government.” The Court’s only concern was whether the policy complies with the law laid down by Parliament.

As I walked through London, a capital in decline, I reflected on the hostility towards immigrants that led to Brexit and, subsequently, a tough immigration policy. Such harshness includes the deterrent lesson that if you enter the country irregularly, you may be sent 4,000 miles away to a distant country to have your asylum claim decided. Voters need to be very careful what they vote for. Because voting to lock down a country could well spell the derailment of all that is good in an interconnected world, where people, commerce and ideas move across borders. In our interconnectedness is our mutual prosperity.

The author is Senior Counsel at the Supreme Court