Public Law Project: Immigration minister is wrong to say Illegal Migration Act is compatible with the UK’s international obligations
Robert Jenrick responds to PLP's concerns, but PLP says his claims are inaccurate
The Public Law Project (PLP) yesterday published correspondence from the immigration minister Robert Jenrick in which he defended the lawfulness of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
Jenrick was responding to a July letter by PLP and three other European rights groups urging the Government to reconsider the then Illegal Migration Bill. The groups warned that the Bill would undermine the international rules-based system and contravene the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention.
In his 3-page reply, which you can read here, Jenrick denied that the Illegal Migration Act was incompatible with the UK's international obligations.
The immigration minister wrote: "The Act does not prevent someone from claiming asylum. However, if individuals come to the UK illegally, and have not come from a country where their life and liberty were at risk, their asylum and human rights claims against their country of origin will be declared inadmissible. They may be detained, and will be removed either to their home country (if it is safe to do so), or relocated to a safe third country, where they will receive support to rebuild their lives. They will not be able to make a life here in the UK."
He continued: "The Government takes its international obligations very seriously and there is nothing in the Act which requires the Government to act incompatibly with those obligations. Our focus is on putting in place legislation that, once operationalised, will stop people from entering the country dangerously and illegally. We need a radical response to the challenge presented by the illegal and dangerous Channel crossings. The Government is satisfied that the provisions of the Act are capable of being applied compatibly with the Convention rights, and we continue our work with European counterparts, including operational work with the French on the ground to prevent crossings, and vital work upstream and with law enforcement to tackle the networks of criminal smuggling gangs."
PLP says the immigration minister is not correct to say that the Act is compatible with the UK's international obligations.
PLP stated: "This claim is inaccurate. Here are four ways the Act fails to comply with international law:
• As the United Nations refugee agency stated, the Act punishes refugees based on how they arrive, which violates Article 31 of the Refugee Convention.
• By detaining refugees of all ages indefinitely and arbitrarily, the Act breaches Article 5 of the ECHR, which protects the right to liberty.
• By deporting victims of human trafficking and modern slavery without any period of recovery, the Act violates Article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking (ECAT).
• By completely ignoring the best interests of refugee children and detaining them, the Act disregards Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and was therefore condemned by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child."
No comments:
Post a Comment