Attorney general Suella Braverman contradicted by own department on legality of Rwanda deportations
Braverman had wanted to ‘eliminate’ protections against torture, using the policy as a pretext
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The attorney general has been publicly contradicted by her own department over whether the government's Rwanda deportations policy is illegal.
Suella Braverman last week claimed the UK needed to leave the European Convention on Human Rights to go ahead with the removals, arguing that they would be found unlawful under the treaty.
But Ms Braverman’s department has now again claimed that the policy is legal after all, as it prepares to defend it in court.
Labour said that Ms Braverman had “debased her office in the pursuit of her political ambitions”, resulting in an “absolute shambles”.
The attorney general made the comments just hours before being knocked out of the Tory leadership contest, coming bottom in a ballot of MPs despite her attempt to drum up support by attacking human rights.
She had called on the UK to ditch Article 3 rights, under which people are protected from torture and inhuman treatment.
Her comments were branded “an outrageous assault on this most basic of rules against human cruelty” by campaigners.
Ms Braverman's intervention during her leadership campaign raised eyebrows because, as attorney general, she is responsible for laying out the government’s legal position and was claiming that its policy was against the law.
Asked by Labour to put the department’s position in writing before parliament, Ms Braverman’s deputy, solicitor general Edward Timpson, wrote in reply: “It is the government’s position that the migration and economic development partnership is fully compatible with all of our domestic and international legal obligations, including ECHR rights.”
The government will defend the plan at a High Court hearing on 5 September, the same day the new Tory leader will be announced.
Documents lodged with the court this week show that the Home Office pushed the policy through despite repeated concerns from a slew of top UK government officials.
The policy, the brainchild of Priti Patel, will see asylum seekers who arrive on British shores in small boats removed to Rwanda to claim asylum there, with no recourse to return.
Emily Thornberry, Labour’s shadow attorney general, told The Independent: “A matter of days ago, we saw the attorney general saying it was necessary to quit the European Convention on Human Rights in order to implement the government’s Rwanda policy.
“Now we have her office saying the exact opposite in the context of the ongoing litigation.
“This is not just more evidence of how Suella Braverman has debased her office in the pursuit of her political ambitions, but how a government obsessed with its own power struggles has become totally detached from the task of running the country. They are an absolute shambles.”
The first flight under the policy was due to take off on 14 June, but was cancelled after a last-minute intervention from the European Court of Human Rights.
Polling by YouGov conducted in April found that 42 per cent of the public are against the plan, while 35 per cent support it. It has also been condemned by the UN high commissioner for refugees, who said it would amount to the UK breaching its international obligations.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments