Rwanda Plan is lawful, says High Court

Interestingly the judges chastise the PCS Union and the three charities involved for giving themselves the status of 'claimant' in these cases. Per their worships, none of these organisations have any standing in this matter and, in not too many words, need to butt out. This is an interesting ruling that other 'migrants rights' groups will need to take on board before leaping feet-first into litigation in the future.

Hopefully the government will press for costs. There were more than 30 barristers including nine KCs involved in this nice little earner.

The ruling includes comments on the PCS Union's participation in the case which was partly based on a claim that being required to implement the Rwanda policy would be detrimental to the 'well-being' of some of its members.

The ruling notes that it is not unusual for employees to be in disagreement with the policies of their employees but that if the PCSU's claim were allowed to stand that would give carte blanche for every employee in the country to take their employer to court whenever it did something they disagree with even though they were not affected personally.

The strong, unwritten message is 'If you don't like it, get on your bike'.

Everyone should read the Judgment - it contains a remarkable amount of common sense.

It gets better. The court strikes a blow against 'mission creep' in interpretations of the Refugee Convention (para 121 in the Judgment):

...Mr Drabble KC [who was representing two of the aslyum seekers threatened with deportation] submitted that the refugee convention imposes an obligation on contracting states to determine all asylum claims made, on their merits. We disagree. There is no such obligation on the face of the convention. The obligation that is imposed is the one at article 33, not to expel or return a refugee to a place where his life or freedom would be threatened by reason of any of the characteristics that the convention protects. Mr Drabble’s submission was that an obligation to determine asylum claims would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of the convention and could therefore reasonably be assumed. Again, we disagree. Obligations in international treaties are formulated with considerable care. They reflect balances struck following detailed negotiations between states parties. An obligation to determine every asylum claim on its merits would be a significant addition to the refugee convention. There is no reason to infer the existence of an obligation of that order; to do so would go well beyond the limits of any notion of judicial construction of an international agreement; and the protection that is necessary if the purpose of the convention is to be met, is provided by article 33.

As an aside to this specific case, where it is painfully obvious that the outcome of a case will be appealed to the highest court available by whichever side loses, wouldn’t it be quicker and cheaper to go straight there rather than go through these intermediate stages.

That's what Captain Oats said, and look what happened to him.