The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has been criticized by a former UK Supreme Court judge for issuing an eleventh-hour ruling on the UK Government’s Rwanda immigration plan.
Lord Sumption stated today that the judgement was ‘very unsatisfactory’ because it was made behind closed doors in Strasbourg by an anonymous judge.
The seasoned judge, who served on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for six years from 2012 to 2018, believes there are ‘grounds’ to consider ‘modifying’ the European Convention on Human Rights’ operation.
But, he argued, doing so after last week’s Rwanda intervention was “ridiculous.”
He also stated that it was not a justification to withdraw completely from the convention, which Britain helped to build in the aftermath of WWII.
His remarks follow a barrage of criticism from Conservative lawmakers and ministers over the court’s decision to impose an eleventh-hour injunction, essentially halting the first cross-Channel migrant deportation flight to Rwanda.
Attorney General Suella Braverman, in the current round of criticism, stated that “British people should decide who can and cannot stay in our country.”
She also expressed “significant reservations” about the UK’s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights, which is not affiliated with the European Union but which Britain remained a member of after Brexit.
But asked his view on the court’s decision and the fact it was made behind closed doors, Lord Sumption told LBC: ‘I think all of that is very unsatisfactory. But in itself it is not a reason for withdrawing from the human rights convention.
‘There are, I think, reasons for at least modifying the operation of the human rights convention, but it is ridiculous to do this simply on the back of one, provisional decision, because it is not a decision on the merits of the Rwanda scheme, but simply on how to hold the fort until it’s properly decided in July.’
‘I don’t really think that’s a sensible basis on which to decide to revise the human rights convention but there are much larger problems that should be looked at over a much wider-range of issues over a much longer period than the last week.’
He claimed that the court’s ability to grant interim injunctions, such as the one given by the court on Tuesday that essentially grounded the UK’s Rwanda aircraft, was something the court ‘awarded themselves,’ rather than something written into the convention.
Asked if he felt there was a ‘democratic deficit’ in the system, he said: ‘I think the problem is the human rights convention requires the court to decide whether it is desirable to depart from human rights law in the interest of some other important interests.
‘For example the suppression of crime or the control of public finances or something like that.’
He said the convention allowed Governments to depart from these norms in the interest of wider society.
‘These are classically politically issues – do we want more privacy and less effective crime prevention – people will differ about that – how do we resolve these differences in a democracy?
‘We do that through our elected representatives – not by transferring to judges who are quite rightly not politically responsible to anyone.’
His comments come as Ms Braverman said it is ‘time to complete Brexit and let the British people decide who can and cannot stay in our country’ following Tuesday’s ruling.
‘This is still a topic being discussed in Government but I have significant reservations about our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights,’ she said in comments carried by the Daily Express.
‘In the EU referendum the British people voted to take back control of our laws.
‘They are rightly baffled why our immigration controls can still be blocked by European judges.
‘It’s time to complete Brexit and let the British people decide who can and cannot stay in our country.’
Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, has previously branded the court’s ruling as politically motivated, while Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary, has argued the injunction should not have been issued.
Some Conservative MPs have called for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the text interpreted by the Strasbourg court. No 10 and Ms Braverman have not ruled this out, but it looks doubtful that the Government would choose to take such an extreme step.
Mr Raab has stated that the UK will adhere to the treaty, but new rules may allow the government to virtually disregard interim restrictions issued by the Strasbourg court.
The government intends to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new Bill of Rights, which will incorporate the ECHR in domestic law.
The Government has previously stated that it “will not be deterred from doing the right thing, we will not be put off by the inevitable last-minute legal challenges.” However, ongoing court battles have created uncertainty as to when any further attempts to fly asylum seekers to the African country will be made.