Rwanda Bill: Highest court in the UK plans to over rule fact finding

The upcoming presentation of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill for its second reading in the House of Commons on December 12 has sparked considerable concern.

Ian Jeffery, the chief executive officer of the Law Society, expressed apprehension regarding the bill, emphasizing that it imposes a mandatory obligation for all decision-makers, including the courts, to consider Rwanda as a safe country. By doing so, the bill attempts to circumvent factual findings supported by evidence and validated by the Supreme Court, the highest legal authority in the United Kingdom.

Jeffery highlighted the detrimental impact of this approach on the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers. While acknowledging Parliament's authority to alter domestic law in response to court judgments, he cautioned against using legislation to alter established facts. The erosion of independent judicial oversight, in his view, poses a significant threat to the rule of law and the protection of individual rights within a democratic framework. Such measures, he argued, would essentially elevate the government above the law and demonstrate a concerning disregard for fundamental legal principles.

The Law Society CEO also pointed out that this marks the second instance in a year—following the introduction of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—where the government has conveyed doubts about the compatibility of its plans for relocating asylum seekers to third countries with international law.

He further warned that any incompatibility between the Bill and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could lead to cases being adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Photo by Amakuru - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12248764