header-logo header-logo

Illegal Migration Act branded ‘senselessly cruel’

19 July 2023
Issue: 8034 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail
The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has joined a coalition of 290 lawyers, justice, immigration, housing, legal advice and rights groups to collectively condemn the passing of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

The Act creates a duty to detain and remove to Rwanda or another country deemed safe by the government persons arriving in the UK by an unauthorised route such as by a small boat, regardless of whether they claim asylum.

The coalition includes Liberty, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Law Centres Network, the Public Law Project, SMK Law Solicitors and Rights of Women.

Their statement calls the legislation a ‘senselessly cruel Act’ which ‘will have a devastating impact on people’s lives. It turns our country’s back on people seeking safety, blocking them from protection, support, and justice at a time they need it most’.

They warn the Act ‘risks breaching multiple international human rights treaties including the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights while shielding the government from accountability.

‘The UK government has admitted that it cannot confirm if the Act is compatible with the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act will force people into situations that threaten their lives—whether by placing children in detention or sending people off to countries where their lives might be at grave risk’.

The statement continues: ‘In stripping the most basic rights from people seeking safety and a better life, the Act dismantles human rights protections for all of us.’

The Act passed this week following a round of ping-pong between the two Houses of Parliament, after peers withdrew or were defeated on amendments intended to install 72-hour limits on the detention of children, modern slavery protections and exemptions for trafficking victims, and to ensure compliance with international human rights treaties. Peers also withdrew amendments preventing the removal of LGBT people to certain countries, and imposing a duty on the home secretary to create safe and legal routes to the UK for refugees.

Concessions granted by the government included that unaccompanied children will be granted bail after eight days in detention, and that pregnant women cannot be detained for more than 72 hours without ministerial authorisation.

The Bibby Stockholm, a barge that can house up to 500 asylum seekers, docked at Portland, Dorset on the morning after the legislation passed.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll