After the first deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda was abandoned after a dramatic 11th-hour intervention from the European court of human rights, the government insisted it was only a “temporary setback”. As some Conservative MPs are expected to renew calls for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR, here are some key questions surrounding its role in this case.
What is the ECHR?
It is an international court, set up in 1959, to rule on individual or state applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European convention on human rights. Its judgments are binding on the 46 Council of Europe member states that have ratified the convention.
What is the Council of Europe?
It is the continent’s leading human rights organisation, of which the UK is still a member, and different from the EU, the economic and political partnership, which the UK has left.
What is the European convention on human rights?
Developed during the second world war, it came into effect in 1953 to ensure governments could not dehumanise and abuse individuals’ rights. Articles listed in the convention include the right to a fair trial, the right to liberty and security and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
How did the ECHR intervene in the Rwanda flight?
It granted an urgent interim measure in regards to an Iraqi national, preventing his removal to Rwanda until three weeks after the delivery of the final UK domestic decision in his judicial review proceedings. The decision provided grounds for the remaining six people due to be removed to appeal for their removal orders to be scrapped. It is understood the ECHR is considering a number of other requests.
Can the UK government appeal against the ECHR decision?
According to Thérèse Coffey, the work and pensions secretary, the UK is likely to challenge the ECHR ruling and is, apparently, already preparing for the next flight to Rwanda. She told Sky News the government would “go back, I am sure, to the ECHR to challenge this initial ruling”. It is unclear on what grounds.
Could the government remove the UK from the ECHR?
Hours before the ruling, Boris Johnson had suggested he could consider taking the UK out of the ECHR. But two government ministers appeared to reject that idea on Wednesday. Coffey said she was “not aware of any decision or even hints about that”.
Guy Opperman, a pensions minister, told Times Radio: “I don’t believe it is our policy, nor would it be something I will be advocating for, withdrawing from the ECHR.” According to reports, there are calls on Tory MP WhatsApp groups to withdraw from the ECHR and to speed up the introduction of a UK bill of rights.
What is the UK’s government’s stance on the European convention on human rights?
The UK was the first nation to ratify the convention in March 1951. The Human Rights Act of 1998 enshrined the convention into British law, allowing the rights guaranteed by the convention to be enforced in UK courts. But the government has vowed to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new bill of rights, after a pledge to reform human rights laws was included in the Tory manifesto in 2019.
The government said the changes would strengthen “freedom of speech” and bring “proper balance” between the rights of individuals and effective politics.
What is the relationship between the ECHR and the Good Friday agreement?
The Human Rights Act, and the European convention on human rights that it incorporates, are embedded as a key pillar of devolution. Convention rights run through the Good Friday agreement. Under the Good Friday agreement, the ECHR underpins human rights guarantees in Northern Ireland. Remaining signed up to the ECHR also helps ensure judicial and legal cooperation with the EU under the terms of the Brexit deal.
• The subheading of this story was amended on 15 June 2022. The original version gave the wrong date for the establishment of the European court of human rights.
