Dominic Raab condemns European Court of Human Rights decision to block Rwanda deportation

UK has no plan to leave the ECHR, but Raab says Strasbourg-based court should take a more limited view of its powers

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had overstepped its powers in blocking the UK’s attempt to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda this week, says the UK’s justice secretary and deputy prime minister, Dominic Raab

“The Strasbourg court itself has said for many years that there’s no binding power of injunction. And then later on they said: ‘Well actually, we can issue such binding injunctions. It is not grounded in the Convention’”, Mr Raab said.

The UK’s initial attempt to deport asylum seekers — part of a policy designed to deter dangerous sea crossings of the English Channel — was temporarily thwarted on Tuesday by an injunction from the ECHR.

The UK Government cannot give a fixed date for when it will first be able to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, he said.

READ MORE

When asked when the first migrants will be deported to Rwanda, Mr Raab said: “I don’t think I can give a precise date.”

“The important thing to understand is that this continuing legal challenge has been around the injunctions. There is a full hearing due in a few weeks and all the issues can be aired there.”

Mr Raab also said the UK has no plan to leave the ECHR, but wants the Strasbourg-based court which enforces it to take a more limited view of its powers.

“Our plans involve staying within the Convention, the European Convention. It is also important the Strasbourg court reflects and stays faithful to its mandate as part of the convention,” he said

Raab said he did not believe the Convention gave the ECHR the power to issue injunctions to block Government action — as it did over British plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda — in advance of its final ruling on a case.

Challenged over death threats on social media to human rights lawyers, Mr Raab said they were unacceptable but Britain’s Human Rights Act had led to an “industry” of lawyers promoting “elastic interpretations” of the law on behalf of their clients. — Reuters