A JUDGE blocked parts of the Rwanda scheme legislation from applying in Northern Ireland – arguing they are incompatible with human rights laws.
In a judgment delivered at Belfast High Court on Monday, Mr Justice Humphreys said aspects of the Illegal Migration Act were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The post-Brexit Windsor Framework jointly agreed by the UK and EU includes a stipulation that there can be no diminution of the rights provisions contained within Northern Ireland’s Good Friday peace agreement of 1998.
The Illegal Migration Act provides new powers for the Government to detain and remove asylum seekers it deems to have arrived illegally in the UK.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak mentions 'Scottish nationalists' in speech on 'extremist' threats to UK
Mr Justice Humphreys delivered judgment in two challenges against the Act that focused on the peace process human rights protections guaranteed by the Windsor Framework.
The judge found that several elements of the Act do cause a “significant” diminution of the rights enjoyed by asylum seekers residing in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
“I have found that there is a relevant diminution of right in each of the areas relied upon by the applicants,” he said.
He added: “The applicants’ primary submission therefore succeeds. Each of the statutory provisions under consideration infringes the protection afforded to RSE (Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity) in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.”
The judge ruled that the sections of the Act that were the subject of the legal challenges should be “disapplied” in Northern Ireland.
One of the cases was taken by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the other by a 16-year-old asylum seeker from Iran who is living in Northern Ireland having arrived in the UK as an unaccompanied child.
READ MORE: Tory MSP Murdo Fraser in bid to 'reform' the Scottish Parliament
The boy, who travelled from France by small boat and claimed asylum in July 2023, has said he would be killed or sent to prison if he returned to Iran.
The judge agreed to place a temporary stay on the disapplication ruling until another hearing at the end of May, when the applicants will have an opportunity to respond to the judgment.
Tony McGleenan KC, representing the Government, indicated that an appeal may be considered.
“We’ll be taking our instructions on the judgment and the position in terms of any further litigation will become clear, my Lord,” he said.
Downing Street said the Government would challenge the ruling, but insisted its overall plan for sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would not be affected.
It suggested the rights provisions of the Good Friday Agreement were never intended to cover issues such as “illegal migration”.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “This judgment doesn’t affect our operational plans to send illegal migrants to Rwanda or the lawfulness of our Safety of Rwanda Act.
“We continue to work on the timetable that the Prime Minister had previously set out.
“We’ve consistently been clear that the commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended and not expanded to cover issues like illegal migration.
“We will take all steps to defend that position including through appeal.”
Outside court, solicitor Sinead Marmion, who represented the teenage Iranian asylum seeker applicant, said the judgment was “hugely significant”.
Marmion said the judgment would prevent the Rwanda scheme applying in Northern Ireland.
“This is a huge thorn in the Government’s side and it has completely put a spanner in the works,” she told the PA news agency.
“There’s a huge obstacle in the way of them being able to actually implement that in Northern Ireland now, as it’s been found to be incompatible with the Windsor Framework.”
In a statement, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission said: “The commission issued this legal challenge in its own name due to the significant concerns it has with the Illegal Migration Act and the effect on asylum seekers in Northern Ireland.
“We will now be considering the judgment in full and its implications.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel