ITV News political reporter Shehab Khan reports growing calls by some Tory lawmakers for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights The interior minister said she was “committed” to a policy of sending asylum seekers more than 4,000 miles to Rwanda, following the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling on the 11th hour that it blocked a scheduled deportation flight last night. Priti Patel said she welcomed the rulings in the UK domestic courts to remove migrants from the flight, but said it was “disappointing and surprising” to learn of the ECtHR’s intervention. Downing Street said the government would do “whatever it takes” to ensure that deportation flights to Rwanda take place and “all options are on the table” – including withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Rwandan flight – which was carrying up to seven people until Tuesday night – was scheduled to take off at around 10.30pm from a Wiltshire military airport, but last-minute decisions by the ECHR canceled all passengers’ tickets. Despite the government’s efforts to reduce Channel crossings, about 150 more people were evacuated to Dover on Wednesday as low winds created ideal weather conditions for such attempts. The interior minister insisted that the United Kingdom remained committed to Rwanda’s deportation policy, saying “preparations for the next flights have already begun”. Asked if the government could pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights, number 10 said: “We have all the options on the table, including any further legal reforms that may be necessary. “We will look at all the legislation and procedures in this round.” Attorney General Suella Braverman told ITV’s Peston show “every choice is on the table” when asked about leaving the ECHR on Wednesday, adding that the government “does not rule anything out”. “There is huge concern about what has happened … nothing is ruled out.” The ECHR – which is not a body of the European Union – is part of the Council of Europe, of which the UK is still a member. Why asylum seekers were allowed to stay in the UK on Tuesday The ECtHR issued precautionary measures against three of the migrants and the remaining four migrants were removed from the area after being placed on probation by UK courts or for reasons of modern slavery. Judges of the Court of Appeal issued precautionary measures – temporarily preventing the removal of the men – to three asylum seekers whose appeals were rejected in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. On Wednesday afternoon, the court confirmed that three judges held an emergency hearing at 9:50 p.m. yesterday – just 40 minutes before the flight was to take off from Wiltshire. Maha Sardar, a lawyer at Garden Court Chambers, was one of the legal team that represented the asylum seekers who were to be removed on the flight. He told ITV News: “The prospect of being forcibly removed to a country that is foreign to you and with which you have nothing to do is extremely traumatic. “There was a huge collective sigh of relief in the courtroom when the flight to Rwanda was canceled. As lawyers, we understand that we have serious concerns for the physical and mental well-being of our clients, both on the road and when they arrive in Rwanda. . “ Ms Sardar said Rwanda’s policy “fails to recognize the humanity and dignity of those who look to the United Kingdom for international protection”. “We want the UK Government to provide unconditional support to individuals and communities facing war and persecution,” he told ITV News. “Their faith, nationality or nationality does not matter. What matters is that their basic humanity and dignity – the most fundamental of human values - is violated.” What are the legal implications of this for government policy? Those removed from the flight will be released from immigration detention centers and electronic labels will be affixed “while we continue to relocate,” Patel said. The Court of Appeals will consider the three men on appeal on June 28, and a full review of the plan by the Supreme Court is expected in July. If the policy is deemed illegal, some individuals could be repatriated to the United Kingdom from Rwanda. Do you want a quick and specific update on the biggest news? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out what you need to know Ms Patel told lawmakers in the Commonwealth that an “overtime” judge had ruled against deporting the last remaining passengers on the flight “minutes” before departure. He said evacuation orders for people on the flight had been “suspended”, but added: “The European Court of Human Rights has not ruled that the policy or the movement was illegal, but has banned the removal of three of them on yesterday’s flight. “These bans last for different periods of time, but they are not an absolute barrier to their transfer to Rwanda. Whoever has been ordered to be released by the courts will be identified as we continue to relocate them.” Asked if a flight could take place before legal proceedings in the UK were completed, number 10 said: “This is my understanding.” The Home Secretary praised the UK courts for their transparency in their decisions, but accused the European Court of Justice of being “opaque”. ITV News political correspondent Romilly Weeks explains how the dramatic events unfolded around the controversial deportation flight to Rwanda on Tuesday In its decision, the ECtHR acknowledged concerns about access to “fair and efficient refugee status procedures” in Rwanda, the fact that the African nation is not part of the European human rights framework and the absence of “any legal return migrants to the UK if the policy is successfully challenged. Ms Patel said she would not let the “usual suspects” or “mobs” – an obvious reference to lawyers and opposition lawmakers – prevent the sending of asylum seekers to Rwanda. He added: “We will not accept that we have no right to control our borders, we will do whatever is necessary to keep this country safe and we will continue our long and proud tradition of helping those in real need.” There have been calls from Tory’s party to the United Kingdom to leave the ECHR, which is not an institution of the European Union, and Britain’s accession has not been affected by Brexit. Will the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights? “Our legal team is reviewing every decision made for this flight and preparation for the next flight is starting now,” he said. He described the EDA’s intervention as “very surprising”, adding that “many of those who left this flight will be placed on the next one”. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Johnson suggested that he could withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights in order to force deportations, and on Wednesday his spokesman did not rule it out. The number 10 said “all options are on the table … we will see the role of the ECHR”, when asked about the possibility of leaving it. The Prime Minister said: “Will it be necessary to change some laws to help us as we move forward? It may well be that all these options are under constant consideration.” The proposals sparked outrage on social media, with people on Twitter calling it “shameful” and “disgusting.” However, Health Minister Sajid Javid did not rule out when asked on Wednesday if it was something the UK was considering. He said leaving the ECtHR was not “naturally” the only solution to legal decisions against deportations, but avoided the question when pressed for an immediate answer. Instead, he said the UK was determined to pursue a policy and was ready to fight the court rulings.
