Rishi Sunak said he was prepared to defy the European Court of Human Rights over his Rwanda plan despite a senior judge warning he would be breaking international law by doing so.
The Prime Minister said he would not have put powers to ignore the court in the Rwanda legislation going through Parliament unless he was willing to use them.
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill states that it is up to ministers to decide whether or not to comply with interim rulings issued by judges in the human rights court.
But the Strasbourg court’s president, Siofra O’Leary, said “there is a clear legal obligation” under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for states to abide by the so-called Rule 39 interim measures.
The Prime Minister told broadcasters the Rwanda scheme was needed as a deterrent to stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats.
“I’ve been very clear, I won’t let a foreign court stop us from getting flights up and running and establishing that deterrent,” he said.
“The Bill that we’ve just passed through the House of Commons has a specific power in it that says ministers will get to make those decisions, I would not have put that power in there if I wasn’t prepared to use it.”
A Rule 39 measure – branded a “pyjama injunction” by critics because it can be issued outside normal court hours – contributed to the 2022 grounding of the first flight intended to take asylum seekers to Rwanda under the Government’s controversial scheme.
Legal challenges
The new legislation which is due to be considered in the Lords next week seeks to address the legal challenges which have dogged the scheme and gives ministers the power to ignore the emergency injunctions.
But Ms O’Leary told a press conference: “There is a clear legal obligation under the Convention for states to comply with Rule 39 measures.“
She said the interim measures are only issued “in exceptional circumstances where there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable harm”.
Countries which have failed to comply with Rule 39 indications have previously been found to have violated obligations under Article 34 of the ECHR, which gives the right for individuals to apply to the court once domestic legal routes have been exhausted.
Vladimir Putin
Senior judge Ms O’Leary said the UK “has always complied with Rule 39 measures”, except in one very particular case, and has “publicly declared the need for other states to comply with Rule 39 indications” – including urging Vladimir Putin’s Russia to abide by a 2021 measure in relation to the release of opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
The Strasbourg court president would not be drawn on the Safety of Rwanda Bill while it goes through the parliamentary process.
But she said: “I know there’s a very healthy debate in the United Kingdom relating to the content of the Bill.
“It’s a country which is blessed with many, many international legal experts and a very active civil society. So I am sure that all of those issues can be fully examined.”
In the Rwanda case in June 2022, the interim measure blocking an Iraqi asylum seeker being sent to the African state was granted just hours before the flight was due to take off.
Ms O’Leary said Rule 39 measures are almost always sought in “situations of urgency, if not extreme urgency, and the nature of the urgency or the degree of urgency is something which respondent governments control”.
Interim injunction powers
The interim injunction powers are rarely used – in 2023 13 requests were refused, and just one interim measure was granted.
The Rule 39 process is currently being reformed and since December 2023 the duty judge issuing an interim measure will be identified, addressing one of the criticisms of the situation in the Rwanda case.
Downing Street claimed the legislation going through Parliament would mean that the Strasbourg court would not need to get involved in any future deportation flights.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “We are confident our legislation is compliant with our international obligations. We’re clear the Bill and the treaty address the Supreme Court’s concerns. There should be no need for Strasbourg to intervene to block flights in the way they did in 2022.
“We will not let a foreign court block flights from taking off“
“We’ve also drafted the Bill to give ministers the power not to comply with those rulings if necessary. And obviously every case is assessed on its individual facts, but the Prime Minister has been clear repeatedly that we will not let a foreign court block flights from taking off.”
The spokesman added: “I think it would be bizarre to draw any comparison between Russia’s cruel treatment of Alexei Navalny, who was a victim of an attempted assassination attempt, and our plan to protect and deter vulnerable migrants from making perilous crossings across the Channel.”
Meanwhile, the head of the United Nations’ refugee agency also criticised the Government’s approach.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi told the BBC that some countries with “more resources” were devising “systems with which they would abdicate responsibilities they have to asylum seekers and shift these responsibilities to other states”.
“This is contrary to the basic principles of refugee protection,” he said.
Related: Ministers’ severance payouts under Truss and Johnson nearly £1m, analysis shows