The European Court of Human Rights granted a last minute appeal on Tuesday allowing an asylum seeker, due to be on the Government’s maiden flight to Rwanda, to remain in the UK. The decision of the European Court overruled the decisions of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to deny other migrant appeal cases. Following the move by the European Court of Human Rights, Tuesday’s scheduled flight to Rwanda was scrapped as the remaining six asylum seekers were given renewed grounds to challenge the orders for their removal from the UK. Speaking on LBC, Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski said: “Last night, when I heard that the European Court in Strasbourg had overturned, or thwarted, the will of the British people, the will of Parliament, and overturned, basically, the rulings of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, I was very, very shocked and very worried.”
LBC host Iain Dale interrupted to add: “It hasn’t said that this policy is wrong, it hasn’t said that deportations can’t happen.
“The cases were about two individual people, it wasn’t on the general policy.”
Mr Kawczynski continued: “Most maritime law is predicated on English law, many financial centres around the world use English law, a lot of international arbitration is brought to London for arbitration, basically, because of the confidence in English law.
“So, why is it that we have a system now where our Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by a foreign court like this.”
The Tory MP declared that post-Brexit Britain should have the legal power to make independent rulings rather than be held to the accountability of the European Court.
Mr Kawczynski said: “Surely now that we are outside of the European Union and free to do some of these things, surely now the time has come to have a British bill of rights rather than following this foreign court.
He added: “I think we ought to now have confidence in the Supreme Court.
“I think we are mature enough, as a democracy, to have a level of confidence in our own judicial process, in our judges, in their transparency and accountability, in their ability to follow the rule of law.
“If three courts in this country, the High court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, all give the green light for this flight to take off, it is really really dangerous and I’m really fearful of the fact that we still live in this situation where the foreign court can overturn.”
The European Court of Human Rights, established in 1959, has the ability to determine international allegations concerning breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In a drastic move, the European Court allowed the appeal of an Iraqi man, one of seven passengers due to board the flight, with a ruling that prevented his deportation to Rwandan.
The decision provided grounds for the remaining six asylum seekers to appeal their removal in the same manner and overruled the prior court decisions.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the Iraqi man, referred to as KN in court documents, should not be removed to Rwandan until three weeks after the final decision surrounding a legal assessment of the policy is made by UK courts.
Ann Widdecombe warns ECHR to stand down on UK migration law [INSIGHT]
‘This cannot go on!’ Priti Patel rages at Rawanda flight block by ECHR [REVEAL]
Priti Patel’s Rwanda ‘deterrent’ mocked over failure [REPORT]
Prior to the European Court’s ruling, the High Court had already determined a full review of the Rwanda deportation policy was necessary.
While the review is conducted, Home Secretary Priti Patel is still able to order and conduct the removal of asylum seekers arriving in the UK to Rwanda.
However, should the review conclude that the policy is unlawful and a violation of human rights, further taxpayer money may be lost as migrants that had been removed to Rwanda could have to be returned to the UK.
Conservative ministers have remained adamant that the removal scheme will continue despite the failure of Tuesday’s flight to depart.