Subscriber OnlyCrime & LawAnalysis Q&A

Belfast court’s landmark ruling on UK Rwanda law: What it means North and South

Concern that migrants are crossing Border to avoid deportation ‘has no weight any more’, says human rights lawyer

Sinéad Marmion, asylum and immigration solicitor at Phoenix Law, described Monday's ruling at the Belfast High Court in relation to the UK's Illegal Migration Act as 'absolutely landmark', Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Wire

Seanín Graham's face
Seanín Graham
Mon May 13 2024 - 20:40

What were the findings in the Belfast High Court on Monday and who took the case?

Mr Justice Michael Humphreys ruled that large parts of the UK government’s Illegal Migration Act – which provides powers to remove asylum seekers deemed to have arrived illegally in the UK – should not apply to Northern Ireland because it breaches human rights protections guaranteed by the post-Brexit Windsor Framework deal.

Article 2 of the deal is underpinned by the Belfast Agreement’s commitment to a rights-based society for everyone living in the North.

Central to the UK law is the controversial scheme to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda – although this falls under separate legislation that deems Rwanda to be a safe country.

The Belfast court also found that aspects of the legislation are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

READ MORE

The legal challenge was taken by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and a 16-year-old asylum seeker from Iran who came to Northern Ireland last August. The teenager arrived by small boat to Kent and was transferred by the UK Home Office to Northern Ireland under the UK’s National Transfer Scheme.

He arrived after the law came into force and was worried about the impact of being sent away; under the provisions of the law this would have happened once he turned 18.

How significant is the ruling and what are the implications for Northern Ireland?

“Absolutely landmark” is how the solicitor representing the teenage asylum seeker described the case. Sinéad Marmion of Phoenix Law in Belfast said the ruling would have major ramifications for Downing Street.

“It changes everything, it’s a huge moment. This has completely derailed the UK government’s flagship policy to remove people and not deal with their claims,” she said.

The ruling provides a unique protection for migrants in Northern Ireland compared with Britain.

Asylum seekers’ claims must now be dealt with substantively by Stormont.

The NI Human Rights Commission welcomed the judgment.

It said it issued the legal challenge in “its own name due to the significant concerns it has with the Illegal Migration Act and the effect on asylum seekers in Northern Ireland”.

It said it would now be “considering the judgment in full and its implications”.

What consequences will it have for the Republic?

Immigration lawyers in the North have played down reports of an upsurge in the number of asylum seekers moving to the Republic to avoid the UK’s Rwanda policy, saying it would be impossible to quantify and the reports “weren’t true” based on their experience.

Marmion, an immigration lawyer with more than 1,000 clients, says the Belfast court ruling “dispels those claims now because the position was that people were doing that [crossing the Border] to avoid Rwanda”.

Any such pull factor was effectively gone “after today”, she said. “That particular position has no weight any more. But I already have my reservations about those figures in any event.”

How have politicians reacted?

The DUP said Northern Ireland could become a “a magnet for asylum seekers seeking to escape enforcement” and called on the UK government to act to ensure the same immigration rules apply across the UK.

DUP interim leader Gavin Robinson said the ruling could lead to the creation of an “immigration border” in the Irish Sea.

But UK prime minister Rishi Sunak said the court decision changes nothing about his government’s plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda.

He said it was working to get flights off the ground to Rwanda soon and “nothing will distract us from that or delivering to the timetable I set out”.

“We must start the flights to stop the boats.”

Does the ruling pave the way for further legal challenges?

Potentially.

“If immigration legislation is found to be incompatible with the Windsor Framework, with the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), with the ECHR – which of course is baked into the GFA – then that legislation needs to be repealed for the entirety of the UK,” says Belfast immigration solicitor Úna Boyd

“This is a unique protection for Northern Ireland but if it led to the repeal of aspects of the Illegal Migration Act, it could result in rights’ protections for everyone in the UK.”

LATEST STORIES