T
the European court’s “absolutely outrageous” decision to land the first flight to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was politically motivated, according to the interior minister.
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Tuesday granted a precautionary measure that prevented a plane chartered in Kigali from leaving Wiltshire.
“You have to look at motivation,” Priti Patel told The Daily Telegraph.
“How and why did they make that decision? Did he have political motivation? I think it is, absolutely.
“The opaque way this court has worked is absolutely outrageous. That must be questioned.
READ MORE
“We don’t know who the judges are, we don’t know who the court is, we haven’t actually had a trial – just a press release and a letter saying we can’t move that person under rule 39.
“They have not used this ruling before, which makes you question the motivation and lack of transparency.”
Three people scheduled to board the Boeing 767 in Boscombe Down, near Salisbury, were affected by the decision of the ECHR (Andrew Matthews / AP) / PA Wire
Recent legal rulings have prompted calls by some Conservative MPs to remove the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights – which British lawyers helped establish – on which the court is ruling, although it appears that the government he is not willing to take such a drastic step. .
Justice Secretary Dominic Raab has suggested that the UK stay within the convention, but new laws could ensure that the Strasbourg court’s interim measures can be ignored by the government.
The grounding of the flight came after a series of legal challenges in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the ECHR on behalf of the asylum seekers who had to be sent on the outward journey to the East African nation.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly attacked those who have filed legal challenges, accusing them of “compliance” with criminal gangs.
Lawyers, meanwhile, have received death threats.
Business Minister Paul Scully said he did not “recognize the link between the two.”
He told Times Radio: “We want to put in place a robust system that really works because people, over and over again, at the polls have always said that mass migration in this way needs to be addressed.
“We believe we have done so in a fair and reasonable manner, and so far no court has ruled that the agreement with Rwanda is illegal.”
When asked if the Prime Minister’s “compliance” comment was appropriate, Mr. Scully said: “I think the net result is that if we block measures to address the situation on the Canal, then, invariably, human traffickers will continue to engage in their horrible trade and push people into small light boats and risk their lives. “.
Judicial battles mean there is uncertainty about when more attempts will be made to send asylum seekers to the African country, although Ms Patel has said earlier that the government “will not be deterred from doing the right thing”. “We will not be discouraged. The inevitable last minute legal challenges.”