There are still plenty of obstacles that could result in the Government’s Rwanda plan being a “massive failure”, an immigration lawyer has said.
Barristers have warned the Government faces a “large influx” of legal challenges, despite the legislation overcoming a significant hurdle after it passed on Monday when the House of Lords abandoned a final amendment.
Antonia Torr, immigration partner at law firm Fladgate and representing several clients who will be affected directly by the Rwanda bill, which is to become law after two years of legal wrangling, said it is not too big to fail.
Lawyers representing asylum seekers at risk of being deported to Rwanda under the legislation have already started to alter their approach in building cases given the passing of the bill, she added.
In anticipation of the tight window to challenge clients’ notices for removal to Rwanda, lawyers have begun “front-loading” applications and putting in evidence at a much earlier stage.
Ms Torr told i: “One of the main lines of argument that you can take to prevent somebody from being removed to Rwanda for consideration of their asylum claim is if you can demonstrate that they’re a victim of human trafficking or torture or that there would be serious health or mental considerations that would make their removal to Rwanda unduly harsh.
“For those people who are already in the system who get a notice of intent to remove to Rwanda, we only have seven days to provide that information, which is not a lot of time to provide medical information or expert reports.
“A lot of lawyers like myself will be having to spend a lot more time at the beginning of the application process to try and get that information up front so that we can put it in sooner rather than later, which is not how the asylum system has been typically designed or structured.”
Ms Torr, who could not give details of the clients her firm is representing due to reasons of client confidentiality, said the types of refugees that lawyers are dealing with include individuals from Afghanistan who assisted British forces in the country before it was reclaimed by the Taliban.
The Government has pledged that Afghans with “credible links” to military units that served alongside British forces will not be deported but legal teams supporting them remain unconvinced they are protected from removal to Rwanda.
“My experience as an immigration and human rights lawyer is that our Government cannot be trusted to look after their records and to have the duty of candour when disclosing those records. We have Windrush as a very good example of that,” Ms Torr said.
During the Commons debate on the bill on Monday, Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson told MPs: “This Government recognises the commitment and response of an issue that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage and served alongside us, we will not let them down.”
Ms Torr said that despite the bill’s passing, there are still “plenty of obstacles that could result in this being a massive failure for the Government”. A change in government in either Rwanda or the UK, both of which hold general elections this year, could affect the roll-out, she added.
Other global developments, such as statements issued by the UN and injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights, could also boost legal challenges.
Ms Torr said while the Government can ignore such interventions, they do help lawyers representing asylum seekers.
The battlefield over the implementation of the Rwanda bill is now unlikely to be one that centres on an overarching legal argument, but rather appeals on a case-by-case basis.
“It will be individuals having to go to court having to fight for why their case should not be part of the Rwanda deportation scheme,” Ms Torr said.
Other lawyers and legal experts i spoke to agree.
Dr Helen O’Nions, Associate Professor of Law at the Nottingham Law School, said protests would be extensive and obstructions would depend on which asylum seekers are selected for removal.
She said: “Each individual will have a different story but most are likely to be refugees not just migrants (based on the stats alone) who will have a well-founded fear of persecution.”
Shazada Yasin, a barrister, said as long as Parliament is of the view that Rwanda is a safe country, UK courts and tribunals will have to adhere to this as fact. But he said it is fair to say there will be “a large influx” of legal challenges in the coming weeks.
Mr Yasin, a lecturer at the University of Law, said despite the passing of the Rwanda bill, there are still some very serious legal challenges that pose a “monumental problem” for the Prime Minister.
“The main legal challenges will ultimately depend upon human rights breaches and principles of international human rights law.
“It has now been five months since the Supreme Court judges shared their views on this policy, and the judges’ concerns have clearly not been given any meaningful consideration by the Lords or the prime minister.”