Leave aside for a moment the morality of the government’s plan to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda. The first fact about the scheme is that it will not work. It is most unlikely to persuade the Supreme Court, which ruled against the scheme last month, that its legal defects have been remedied.
The second fact about the scheme is that it will not work. Even if the Supreme Court were persuaded, and a few planeloads of asylum seekers did arrive at Kigali International airport, after further months if not years of court cases concerning the specific circumstances of each individual, the policy would not act as enough of a deterrent to “stop the boats”.
The prime minister’s insouciance about the Supreme Court is surprising. For someone with such a reputation for attention to detail, it can only be concluded that he has not read the judgment in full. He should have been directed to paragraphs 19 to 26, in which the justices list the treaties which they believe would be broken by the scheme. Not just the Refugee Convention of 1951, but the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, and the European Convention on Human Rights of 1953.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies