header-logo header-logo

08 March 2024 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 8062 / Categories: Features , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

Tracking the Rwanda Bill (Pt 2)

162777
In the second part of a special NLJ series, Michael Zander KC considers whether the UK must follow interim measures imposed by the Strasbourg court
  • Analyses the House of Lords Committee stage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, particularly regarding the government’s position on whether it must follow the ECtHR’s interim measures.

The politically charged question of whether the UK is required to follow interim decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was given serious attention on 19 February during the House of Lords Committee stage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.

The government’s position, advanced by Lord Stewart of Dirleton, Advocate General for Scotland, was based on the generally accepted proposition that international law is only binding on UK courts if translated into UK law. But that does not dispose of the issue since all countries are required to follow international law.

Clause 5 of the Bill deals with ECtHR interim measures relating to the intended removal of a person

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll