When he announced his controversial Rwanda deportation policy back in April, Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned that it would be challenged in the courts by “a formidable army of politically-motivated lawyers”.
It was a continuation of a long-running government narrative that so-called “lefty” or “activist” lawyers are the reason the Home Office has failed to remove more than a fraction of small boat arrivals from the country.
And while it’s unclear how much cut-through it has to the public, there have been real-world impacts on the legal profession, with solicitors and barristers already dealing with legal aid cuts and staff shortages now facing abuse and sometimes assault.
“It’s an attempt to try to demonise anyone who is trying to support in any form people who are fleeing danger, refugees,” asylum barrister Zehrah Hasan told Sky News.
“It’s trying to create a whole group of people who are somehow in the wrong and the government is somehow in the right.”
It’s not a new tactic either. In 2020, the Home Office was heavily criticized over a video in which it suggested lawyers representing asylum seekers were “activists” who “abuse” the system.
Permanent Secretary Matthew Rycroft agreed the phrase should not have been used and the video was never shown again, the Home Office says.
The department insists that the government’s attempts to facilitate “entirely legitimate and legal returns” are being frustrated by legal claims that are “very often baseless and entirely without merit”.
Home Secretary Priti Patel previously said that the government “will not be deterred from doing the right thing” and will not be put off by “inevitable legal last-minute challenges”.
She said the Rwanda scheme “will help make the immigration system fairer, ensure that people are safe and enjoy new opportunities to flourish”.
Numbers of people risking their lives crossing the English Channel aboard unseaworthy dinghies have rocketed in recent years, as fewer attempts are made in lorries and on ferries.
About 60,000 people are expected to cross the Dover Strait in 2022, more than double the figure for 2021.
This has presented a humanitarian, logistical, and indeed a PR problem for a government apparently determined to pursue a hardline post-Brexit immigration policy.
Over the last few years the Home Office has repeatedly vowed to make the route “unviable”, but the numbers have continued to increase: from 1,843 in 2019 to 28,526 in 2021.
And the numbers are still going up – even though asylum applications overall stay largely the same.
Mr Johnson’s flagship Rwanda policy was immediately challenged in the courts and the first, and so far the only, flight to Kigali was grounded after a last-minute intervention by the European Court of Human Rights.
Ms Hasan, who is head of advocacy for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), says policies like the Rwanda scheme and the Bill of Rights are “creating more cruelty and creating more danger for people who are fleeing their homes”.
“This government basically wants a kind of blank slate to do whatever it wants to do,” she said.
“And what it wants to do is actually exclude and brutalize refugees and asylum seekers.”
in his speech on 14 April when he announced the Rwanda policyMr Johnson said it was aimed at cracking down on “ruthless gangs” who make huge profits from Channel crossings and preventing loss of life.
But Ms Hasan says the solution is actually very simple: creating more safe and legal routes to the UK so that no one has to risk the perilous trip across the Dover Strait.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Rwanda policy ‘could deter migrants’
International human rights and immigration barrister Becket Bradford has often acted in cases involving people who have crossed the Channel, particularly those presenting as children.
Like many barristers in the asylum sphere, he has acted for parties on either side of the issue – in his case, asylum seekers presenting as children and local authorities challenging their age claims.
Mr Bradford says the “lefty lawyers” characterization “clearly is effective” but is “absurd”.
“I mean it’s fantastic political characterization of the present government’s political opponents.
“I mean, obviously, it’s wrong to suggest that professionals engaged in their ordinary work are acting in a party-political way.
“Certainly the opposition to the Rwanda (policy) which is being expressed by a future monarch (Prince Charles) and by their senior bishops, I mean, you can’t describe those people as left-wing, can you?”
But a Home Office spokesperson said: “The government’s efforts to facilitate entirely legitimate and legal returns of people who have entered the UK through illegal routes are too often frustrated by last-minute challenges submitted hours before a scheduled flight.
“These claims are very often baseless and entirely without merit but are given full legal consideration, leading to removal being rescheduled.
“This is why through our Nationality and Borders Act we are introducing a new ‘one stop’ process so that claims are raised up front to tackle the multiple last-minute claims which can frustrate removal.”
Clare Moseley, founder of refugee aid charity Care4Calais, previously told Sky News: “Our view has always been that the Rwanda policy will not work as a deterrent.
“The home secretary has a complete disregard for the lives of people who have already experienced unimaginable trauma and is willing to risk the UK being responsible for human rights violations in order to force this policy through.”
