In the United Kingdom, the first legal action has been taken against British Home Secretary Priti Patel’s plans to deport migrant boats to France. Activists explained that they were waiting for the judges to declare the move illegal and to “force the government to recognize the sanctity of life.”
In a case filed in executive court, the Freedom from Torture group said: [تعرف عن نفسها بأنها تقدم العلاج النفسي المتخصص لمساعدة طالبي اللجوء واللاجئين الناجين من التعذيب على التعافي], That this policy “has no legal basis” and that it would increase the risk of people drowning in the waters of the English Channel.
The Independent’s view of the case documents calls on the executive court to fully review Minister Patel’s plans, with the British Home Office “refusing to give an objective answer to the reasons for the law.”
Earlier, the Home Office declined to comment on the circumstances behind the deportation or to reaffirm the British government’s repeated assurances that the move was “safe and lawful”.
Furthermore, Sonia Seeds, CEO of Freedom from Torture, said, “The inhumane policy of sending people back to where they came from is the latest attempt by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shatter the book of law that holds us all safe. We do not have to legislate to force this government to recognize the sanctity of life.” .
“From our work with victims of torture, we know that people seeking protection have no choice but to travel without prior permission, even if they come from countries where they can not apply,” Chits added. The UK does not issue visas to those seeking a passport or seeking asylum there.
Similarly, says Tessa Gregory, partner at Lee Da La [تدافع عن الأشخاص الذين تعرضوا لإصابة أو تمييز أو لانتهاك حقوقهم الإنسانية] “There is no basis in domestic law” for the retreat and return of immigrants.
He added, “This policy frees Britain from the commitments made at the Refugee Conference and the Human Rights Act.” “Facing the life-threatening consequences of using this policy, 24,000 people have crossed the English Channel into the UK so far this year. We have filed a judicial review against the Home Secretary. The court must declare the return policy illegal.
In addition, in the context of the Freedom from Torture case, the prosecution claimed that the proceeds allowed the British government to engage in illegal conduct by members of the Border Forces and to violate the 1951 Refugee Convention and Convention on European Human Rights. To complete the same group, the current law enforcement powers of the 1971 Immigration Act did not allow boats to be forced out of British waters, and there is no legal basis for repatriation of individuals under domestic law.
This section contains relevant articles placed in the relevant nodes field.
In that context, it should be noted that the legal case is one of the many challenges posed by charities and groups launching public campaigns in the UK to counter government plans.
This was announced by the charity Care4Calais [التي تعمل على تسهيل أوضاع طالبي اللجوء في شمال فرنسا وبلجيكا]And channel recovery [منظمة تراقب حقوق الإنسان أنشئت بعد أن عززت الحكومة البريطانية إجراءات الأمن في القنال الإنجليزي]And the PCS Union, which represents Border Patrol personnel, has announced that they will pursue that legal action, but has not yet taken the case to court.
Mark Sirotka, General Secretary of the BCS Union, described the policy pursued by the British government as “illegal, impractical and, above all, morally reprehensible”.
The union official added, “Our border guards are horrified by the thought of enforcing such a brutal and inhumane policy. If the government does not abandon this horrific approach, we will seek all legal means, including applying for a review.”
As a reminder, the legal challenge to the British Home Secretary’s plans came after a group of British House of Lords sent a letter to Priti Patel expressing that he “did not believe” that his plans were safe or legitimate.
The letter, released last Wednesday, states: “We are not aware of any arguments being made by the government at this time to substantiate its claim.
The day before the letter was sent, members of the House of Representatives voted against the amendment of the Nationality and Boundaries Bill, which would prevent the powers being used “in a life-threatening or maritime situation at sea.”
The motion, tabled by Harriet Harman, chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), was defeated by a margin of 313 votes to 235. To vote ..
In its report on the “Border Bill”, the “Joint Commission on Human Rights” considers that the plan to deport migrant boats to France is illegal and endangers the lives of the people. The report added that the new laws, which partially exempt immigrants from being prosecuted for drowning during operations returning to members of the “Border Security Force”, contained a number of illegal provisions and raised questions about the effectiveness of the laws. .
In this regard, the Committee felt that the Government should rescind or change the proposals. But the bill was passed in the Lok Sabha last Wednesday, without changing the content of the content.
In that context, The Independent is aware that the complex rules imposed by the British Home Office to prevent actions violating international law mean that the repatriation of boats will take place only on a specific section of the English Channel and will take place exclusively thereafter. Many conditions are met.
On the other hand, a Home Ministry spokesman commented, “As part of our current operational response, we continue to evaluate and test with the aim of preventing further casualties at sea. There is a range of safe and legal options aimed at finding ways to prevent small boats from engaging in these dangerous and unnecessary voyages. All of these options are compatible and apply in accordance with domestic and international law. “
“Coffee trailblazer. Social media ninja. Unapologetic web guru. Friendly music fan. Alcohol fanatic.”