While the Court of Appeal ruling that effectively halted the removal of ten asylum seekers to Rwanda in June was hailed as a victory by campaigners, the reality is less clear-cut, Dr Romit Bhandari writes in this week’s NLJ.
Bhandari looks at the context, background and legal argument of the decision. He explains why the decision is less of a success for asylum seekers than widely believed. In fact, as he notes, the court drew a ‘troubling distinction’.
He writes: ‘The outcome appears to be a vindication of both individual rights and the rule of law… However, it is also rather more precarious than the outcome suggests. To borrow the German idiom, it’s worth looking for the hair in the soup.’
RELATED ARTICLES
