Except the Supreme Court have said they will not consider an appeal.

So it is not illegal.

They’re not ruling on legality, they’re refusing to grant injunctions on the flights.

This doesn’t mean they’re legal, it means the courts won’t stop those individuals from being deported while the legal case for the policy is being argued. The decision to grant, or not, an injunction is not in itself a judgement on the underlying policy. The court did the former, not the latter.

What would it take to convince you that this policy is not illegal? (For clarity, I agree with you that it is an awful policy.)

Very simply the Supreme Court would have to rule that the policy was legal and detail how it was in line with UN conventions on refugees.

The English courts haven’t done this yet, they just said they won’t issue injunctions to prevent certain deportations.

Do you expect the Supreme Court to rule on all government policy? Is it the case that you feel government policy is illegal until ruled legal by the SC? Sort of guilty until proven innocent? If the SC decides not to rule, say it just dismisses the case (not sure what the mechanisms are here) would the policy be perpetually illegal or would that be taken as tacit legality of the policy?

This does seem logically consistent to me, just trying to understand your position better.

I expect the Supreme Court to rule on extremely impactful and controversial government policy that interacts with international law. That’s a huge part of its job.

Whether I think it’s legal is based on what the policy is, whether it was passed into law by Parliament (in this case, there’s no Act of Parliament), what legal experts have said, whether it’s been tested by the courts.

You know, how most sensible people make decisions: they look at the information available and make a decision based on that.

Yeah I guess it's just interesting because there's a difference between saying its "immoral" vs "illegal". An Act of Parliament has been passed (Nationality and Borders Act 2022) which gives the legal backing for this, explicitly says that refugees which still have a pending asylum application can be moved to a "safe third country" which is willing to take the asylum responsibilities. Does this change your mind that the policy is legal, given that the information available has expanded to include, you know, all the Acts of Parliament?

No for two reasons:

- it might still violate the Human Rights Act

- it’s still a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe for refugees

Just reading one Act isn’t enough because real life is complicated.

Okay but we can agree that your point about there being no Act of Parliament is not relevant then.

It being a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe is, I think, not something the SC is going to rule on.

It violating the Human Rights Act seems to be the only real issue for the SC then? Again, I just wonder whether this policy is likely to be illegal under that Act given that the relevant clause says "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. I just doubt that deportation would fall under torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment _in the spirit of this Act_. I agree that this policy is immoral but kind of doubt that the SC is going to find it tantamount to torture. But maybe there are other arguments here that I'm unaware of?

What is your legal basis for your assessment?

That many other (EU) countries who have implemented the EUHR directive deport asylum seekers to other countries, and those countries SC equivalents have not found it to be illegal.

I guess my legal basis is precedent.

Your legal basis on which you base your opinion on U.K. law is (supposed) precedent from countries that are not the U.K.

Forgive me if I find your entire premise suspicious and decline the opportunity to debate further.