dagBLOGPOST
How the government won but also lost the court case on Rwanda removal policy
My post on how the terms of the government's victory means that actual removals are more legally difficult
JB Emmons@davidallengreen
Hey FYI, getting a 500 internal server error when I clicking on the link.
EDIT: never mind, it cleared seconds after I posted the above (even though the error repeated for me several times prior). Leaving just in case the problem requires further investigation
AskASwiss
Ferryoons@davidallengreen You just wrote the script for PMQs, with much braying and no concession from the fascists.
Inge@davidallengreen very reassuring, thank you.
Richard Hull@davidallengreen Excellent analysis and it is great to see someone like yourself doing the job that other #journalists <ought> to be doing
legalclaret@davidallengreen a superb blog. It was always going to be a strain for the policy to be determined illegal, but what was previously just logistically complex and expensive just became legally so.
keplerniko@davidallengreen frustrating it’s being reported as a Government ‘win’ when (1) as you astutely point out it is extremely difficult for HMG policy to be struck down wholesale and (2) the Government really lost 19 times.
‘Government wins 1 out of 20 (5%) of the questions before the court’ doesn’t have quite the same headline ring, does it?
‘Government wins 1 out of 20 (5%) of the questions before the court’ doesn’t have quite the same headline ring, does it?
alec #GTTO@davidallengreen thanks for this excellent analysis of what really happened in court today.
‘The policy may well be lawful – but in not one case was the policy lawfully applied.’
‘The policy may well be lawful – but in not one case was the policy lawfully applied.’
Maggie@davidallengreen
When I first saw the headlines flash up, I felt sick.
Thank you for the explanation which clarified so much that the instant headlines didn’t.
When I first saw the headlines flash up, I felt sick.
Thank you for the explanation which clarified so much that the instant headlines didn’t.
Geri ™Well this is hopeful.
As I understood it, the judgement was about the Home Secretary's decision being lawful, not the legality of the removal process per se.
Steve Peers@davidallengreen excellent - might I add Sam Freedman's point that a big feature of the policy was instant deportation, which is impossible due to the obligation to consider individual deportations in the judgment?
Nic@davidallengreen this is a really good post David, I heard the chap from Refugee Action on the radio today and it doesn’t look like they will escalate to the court of appeal as it would not make sense to do so.
P.S. I’m waiting for you to sort your substack out so I can paid subscribe.
P.S. I’m waiting for you to sort your substack out so I can paid subscribe.
Jon Stokes@davidallengreen The Home Secretary is claiming a victory, and that pleases her and her supporters. The Home Secretary that introduced the policy is quietly smirking in the background. The Prime Minister is weakened further.
Tanja in the Green@davidallengreen Thanks for this, it makes me hopeful that the UK Govt won't (can't?) do this awful thing because it's not actually practical.