>The Strasbourg court granted what it calls [interim measures](https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Interim_measures_ENG.pdf) last night. This is the closest it can get to an injunction against a member state. Again, it’s worth reading a [lengthy extract from the court’s press notice and judgment](https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-7359967-10054452):
>
>>[…]
>>
>>…*The Court had regard to the concerns identified in the material before it, in particular by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), that asylum-seekers transferred from the United Kingdom to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status as well as the finding by the High Court that the question whether the decision to treat Rwanda as a safe third country was irrational or based on insufficient enquiry gave rise to “serious triable issues”. In light of the resulting risk of treatment contrary to the applicant’s Convention rights as well as the fact that Rwanda is outside the Convention legal space (and is therefore not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) and the absence of any legally enforceable mechanism for the applicant’s return to the United Kingdom in the event of a successful merits challenge before the domestic courts, the Court has decided to grant this interim measure to prevent the applicant’s removal until the domestic courts have had the opportunity to first consider those issues.”*
>
>That ruling applied only to KN. But, in circumstances that are not yet clear, lawyers for other asylum-seekers who were to be deported last night persuaded the courts that it should apply to them too.
>
>The government may not have predicted which court was going to block the flight to Rwanda last night. But it knew very well that lawyers would do their best to protect their clients while the legal issues were resolved by the courts.
>
>Everyone remembers the case of [*M v Home Office in 1991*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_v_Home_Office). An asylum-seeker was deported to Zaire, contrary to a court order, and the home secretary Kenneth Baker was found to have been in contempt of court. By the time officials realised their error and tried to bring him back, M had disappeared.
>
>It would have been simple enough for the government to have postponed last night’s flight once it knew that there was to be a hearing next month. But perhaps a conflict with the lawyers — and the courts — was just what ministers wanted.
–
For the collectors darkness who are never satisfied, another crumb:
> *We will not stand idly by and let organised crime gangs – who are despicable in their nature and their conduct, evil people – treat human beings as cargo.*
>
> — *Priti Vacant*
> We will not stand idly by and let organised crime gangs – who are despicable in their nature and their conduct, evil people – treat human beings as cargo.
Absolutely bang on Priti! And of course the best way to stop human traffickers is to punish the victims of said trafficking *after* the traffickers have coerced their money and disappeared without a trace. It must really hurt them to know that their victims (the ones who could help us track them down) are being shipped off to Africa without a trace.
3 comments
Drop the meat here from Joshua Rozenberg’s ‘[Conspiracy or cock-up?](https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/conspiracy-or-cock-up?r=36y6s)’ piece from yesterday:
–
>The Strasbourg court granted what it calls [interim measures](https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Interim_measures_ENG.pdf) last night. This is the closest it can get to an injunction against a member state. Again, it’s worth reading a [lengthy extract from the court’s press notice and judgment](https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-7359967-10054452):
>
>>[…]
>>
>>…*The Court had regard to the concerns identified in the material before it, in particular by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), that asylum-seekers transferred from the United Kingdom to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status as well as the finding by the High Court that the question whether the decision to treat Rwanda as a safe third country was irrational or based on insufficient enquiry gave rise to “serious triable issues”. In light of the resulting risk of treatment contrary to the applicant’s Convention rights as well as the fact that Rwanda is outside the Convention legal space (and is therefore not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) and the absence of any legally enforceable mechanism for the applicant’s return to the United Kingdom in the event of a successful merits challenge before the domestic courts, the Court has decided to grant this interim measure to prevent the applicant’s removal until the domestic courts have had the opportunity to first consider those issues.”*
>
>That ruling applied only to KN. But, in circumstances that are not yet clear, lawyers for other asylum-seekers who were to be deported last night persuaded the courts that it should apply to them too.
>
>The government may not have predicted which court was going to block the flight to Rwanda last night. But it knew very well that lawyers would do their best to protect their clients while the legal issues were resolved by the courts.
>
>Everyone remembers the case of [*M v Home Office in 1991*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_v_Home_Office). An asylum-seeker was deported to Zaire, contrary to a court order, and the home secretary Kenneth Baker was found to have been in contempt of court. By the time officials realised their error and tried to bring him back, M had disappeared.
>
>It would have been simple enough for the government to have postponed last night’s flight once it knew that there was to be a hearing next month. But perhaps a conflict with the lawyers — and the courts — was just what ministers wanted.
–
For the collectors darkness who are never satisfied, another crumb:
At the [dispatch box yesterday](https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/oral-statement-on-rwanda):
> *We will not stand idly by and let organised crime gangs – who are despicable in their nature and their conduct, evil people – treat human beings as cargo.*
>
> — *Priti Vacant*
–
and:
>[*Retribution…*](https://archive.ph/QHHs7/764aeac4cc797b064322498f41eedf8655e6c0dd.jpg)
> We will not stand idly by and let organised crime gangs – who are despicable in their nature and their conduct, evil people – treat human beings as cargo.
Absolutely bang on Priti! And of course the best way to stop human traffickers is to punish the victims of said trafficking *after* the traffickers have coerced their money and disappeared without a trace. It must really hurt them to know that their victims (the ones who could help us track them down) are being shipped off to Africa without a trace.