Conclusion of JCHR finds pushbacks are contrary to UK law and International maritime law

[Lirefighter]

This is what happens when you let them out in the community.

 

[motorbiking]

to help you I have quoted the relevant part:

"A policy of pushbacks fails to comply with the obligations to save those in distress, contrary to the right to life and international maritime law. Moreover, pushbacks would do the opposite of what is required to save lives. Pushbacks would create a situation where state actors were actively placing individuals in situations that would increase the risk to life. Under the current conditions, we cannot see how a policy of pushbacks can be implemented without risking lives, contrary to the UK’s obligations under the right to life and international maritime law."

Seems to suggest the French are in violation of the same laws by allowing them to leave. Fortunately Human rights obligations are not unlimited and do not take priority above all other laws, something that the committee seems to want to avoid mentioning. Good job their report is not law and just opinion.

 

[Notch7]

Seems to suggest the French are in violation of the same laws by allowing them to leave

possibly, you are welcome to put forward that argument.

But that doesn’t not change the fact that pushbacks do not comply with the obligations to save those in distress.

Fortunately Human rights obligations are not unlimited and do not take priority above all other laws, something that the committee seems to want to avoid mentioning

Not sure what point you are making there.

Good job their report is not law and just opinion.

The laws already exist, the committee was doing the job of legislative scrutiny not “just opinion”

The government retracted its pushback policy because their lawyers obviously concurred with the report


A government spokesman even admitted as such:

“As we have set out previously, this tactic fully complies with both domestic and international law, however, there are extremely limited circumstances when you can safely turn boats back in the Channel.”

So your claim that Reform have solutions just isn’t so

 

[motorbiking]

Not sure what point you are making there.

That Human Rights exists and can be incompatible with other law. It says so in the Human Rights Act

The laws already exist, the committee was doing the job of legislative scrutiny not “just opinion”

Again that is not how the Human Rights Act works - it's worth reading. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
Your argument seems to be that something cannot pass in to law if it is incompatible with the Human Rights Act. This is not true.

“As we have set out previously, this tactic fully complies with both domestic and international law, however, there are extremely limited circumstances when you can safely turn boats back in the Channel.”n

So your claim that Reform have solutions just isn’t so

Anything that increases the cost and risk of failure is going to work as a deterrent. Even if just 1 in 20.

We have record numbers crossing, we are on track for 50,000 this year.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[motorbiking]

It isn't in breach of someone's Human Rights to put themselves at risk.

The RWR would describe that as 'nanny state gone too far'
And parachuting, water skiing, motor sports, etc would not be allowed.

There aren't any laws that allow you to prevent someone putting themselves at risk

There aren't any laws that allow you to prevent someone putting themselves at risk

Their report is far more than 'just opinion'. It's scrutiny of current laws here and international, and recommendations based on their understanding of those laws.
The committees is comprised of MPs from all parties.
Without those committees the full House would never have time to scrutinise the Bills, etc.

But the committee said so

3.The right to life is inherently engaged when people cross the Channel—a busy shipping lane, often with rough waters—in small unseaworthy vessels. This engages the responsibility of the State from which such boats embark to have taken reasonable measures to prevent people coming to harm at sea, for example by establishing a legal and operational framework to safeguard lives at sea, including by ensuring the seaworthiness of vessels, and by establishing systems to rescue anyone in distress within their search and rescue areas. Part of this includes taking reasonable measures to prevent people placing themselves (and others) in life-endangering situations, as well as to take enforcement action against those involved in human trafficking or slavery. It also engages the responsibility of any other States within whose territorial waters or search and rescue areas such boats pass to take reasonable action to save lives. (Paragraph 53)

or did they get it wrong?

If this was correct - it would enable push back and take back in French waters, under the halo of protecting people from being put at risk

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[Notch7]

Are you suggesting it's a judicial review? it isn't

Please avoid strawman arguments, even those stated explicitly as you’ve done here.

 

[Notch7]

Again that is not how the Human Rights Act works - it's worth reading. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
Your argument seems to be that something cannot pass in to law if it is incompatible with the Human Rights Act. This is not true.

Another strawman

Pushbacks are illegal because small boats are not seaworthy and overloaded