Home Secretary Suella Braverman has come under fire over an email to Conservative Party supporters in which she is quoted as blaming ‘an activist blob of leftwing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour party’ for the failure to stop the dinghy crossings. However, Downing Street has since said Braverman did not see or sign off on the email. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called the Labour leader Keir Starmer KC ‘just another lefty lawyer’ during an exchange about the issue at Prime Minister's Questions this week.
Chair of the Bar Nick Vineall KC said the comments of both Braverman and Sunak ‘betray a startling and regrettable ignorance about the role of lawyers in society.
‘Lawyers represent their clients within the legal framework that Parliament creates. Lawyers should not be associated with the causes of their clients as a result of representing their clients. Right-thinking people from across the political spectrum understand this. It is essential to the rule of law that members of the Cabinet do too.’
Under the Illegal Migration Bill, announced this week, asylum claims from people who have arrived by an irregular route—crossing the channel on a small boat or travelling in the back of a lorry—would be inadmissible. People arriving by irregular means would be detained, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, and removed to a safe third country. Exceptions would apply to those under 18, medically unfit to fly or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm.
The Bill would also disqualify those who have arrived irregularly from using modern slavery laws to prevent their removal.
The UN Refugee Agency has said it is ‘profoundly concerned’ about the Bill, In a statement, it said the Bill ‘would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the UK for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances… This would be a clear breach of the Refugee Convention and would undermine a longstanding, humanitarian tradition of which the British people are rightly proud.
‘Most people fleeing war and persecution are simply unable to access the required passports and visas. There are no safe and “legal” routes available to them.’
Moreover, the Bill could breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
Oliver Oldman, senior associate at Kingsley Napley, said: ‘Contrary to what the PM said during his press conference yesterday, it is unusual for the government to make a statement under s 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
‘It means that the government considers there to be a substantial risk that the Bill will breach the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Should the Bill become law, the act will inevitably be met with legal challengefunded by the taxpayer at great expense. That, in the government’s own view by virtue of its statement under s 19(1)(b), it is more likely than not to lose. Issuing the 19(1)(b) statement completely undermines any assurances the government has issued that the Bill meets the UK’s international obligations.’
Oldman said the Bill, if it became operational, ‘would preclude tens of thousands of genuine refugees from having their claims considered. Coupled with the 28-day period of detention that the Bill introduces, this means punishing refugees for entering the country illegally, which is expressly prohibited by Art 31 of the Refugee Convention. These elements of the Bill are also very clearly vulnerable to challenges under Arts 3 (freedom from torture and inhumane treatment and punishment), 5 (liberty), 8 (private and family life) and 14 (discrimination) of the ECHR.
‘It bears mentioning that the Secretary of State has repeatedly said that these asylum seekers should instead be using “safe and legal routes”. Yet outside of the very few schemes in operation (with varying degrees of success) for nationals of few specific countries, there are no safe and legal routes.’
Law Society president Lubna Shuja said: ‘We are concerned that there has been no public consultation, including with lawyers, to ensure the bill is workable, provides due process for those claiming asylum or is compliant with international law.
‘The government has already conceded the bill may not comply with international human rights law (European Convention on Human Rights) and questions remain about compatibility with the UN Refugee Convention. The rule of law is undermined if the UK government takes the view that laws—international or domestic—can be broken.
‘We will be carefully combing the detail of this bill to determine whether it will lead to the Home Office delivering a fair and workable process, and seeking clarity from the government on whether it is compatible with the UK’s international obligations. Britain should have an asylum system that is fair and fit for purpose.’
