Lawyers prepare for legal battles on behalf of individual asylum seekers challenging removal to east Africa

Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation bill will become law after peers eventually backed down on amending it, opening the way for legal battles over the potential removal of dozens of people seeking asylum.

After a marathon battle of “ping pong” over the key legislation between the Commons and the Lords, the bill finally passed when opposition and crossbench peers gave way on Monday night.

The bill is expected to be granted royal assent on Tuesday. Home Office sources said they have already identified a group of asylum seekers with weak legal claims to remain in the UK who will be part of the first tranche to be sent to east Africa in July.

Sunak has put the bill, which would deport asylum seekers who arrive in the UK by irregular means to Kigali, at the centre of his attempts to stop small boats crossing the Channel.

  • festus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    The UK system has the concept that Parliament is the ultimate authority of matters. So courts there interpret laws but are unable to reject them.

    Canada on the other hand has a constitution which lists different rights that people have, and Parliament has no authority to take away some of these rights. There is some controversial leeway with some of the rights where Parliament, using the ‘Notwithstanding clause’, is allowed to temporarily ignore some sections of the Constitution, but they have to keep renewing that every several years or else it expires, and it can’t be applied to some rights like voting rights.

    Regarding this specific law I’m unsure of whether there’s anything in our constitution that would prevent deporting irregular migrants to a third country.

    • astreus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Just reading it - the constitution of Canada is mostly about land and parliament setup more than anything else (though Constitution Act, 1960 & 1965 are kick-ass).

      The rest is “unwritten” and “interpreted by courts” - exactly like the UK.

      • festus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m referring to the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from 1982. But yes there is still a lot of unwritten rules too like the UK.