Laws should be tightened so migrants have ‘just one right of appeal’ and can be removed within a fortnight, former Lord Chief Justice says

The law must be strengthened so migrants can be removed within two weeks, a former Lord Chief Justice said today.

Lord Thomas has waded into the immigration debate and said he found it inexplicable that migrants were being allowed to bring a number of legal challenges against being forced to leave the UK.

He said the system should be overhauled to limit them to “one right of appeal.”

The remarks from Lord Thomas, who was head of the judiciary in England and Wales between 2013 and 2017, will support government proposals to streamline the asylum system.

But they also risk angering a large sector of lawyers who make their living by dragging out immigration cases with multiple appeals.

The remarks from Lord Thomas, who was head of the judiciary in England and Wales between 2013 and 2017, will support government proposals to streamline the asylum system.

A group of people, believed to be migrants, cross the English Channel while loaded onto a small boat bound for Dover on August 29.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, his predecessor Boris Johnson and former home secretary Priti Patel attacked “left-wing lawyers” for using human rights laws to thwart government efforts to tighten border controls.

“You need to simplify and tighten the procedure – that’s what we need to look at,” Lord Thomas said in a University of Law podcast.

“The only way to properly resolve an immigration issue… is that you actually have to have the opportunity within a certain period of time – say two weeks – to listen, to investigate, to make a decision, to give him one right of appeal – why should you have more than one right to appeal? I simply don’t understand the appeal – and delete them.”

He added: “The problem with immigration is that we have never had a system that can deal with it quickly.

“We didn’t invest money in this.”

However, Lord Thomas said the government should not ignore the European Court of Human Rights ruling if it intervenes to block flights to Rwanda. He questioned powers already enshrined in law under the Irregular Migration Act earlier this year that allow ministers to ignore temporary injunctions, known as Rule 39 orders, which were used by a court in Strasbourg to block the first flight from Rwanda for moments before takeoff in June. last year.

“If you put yourself on trial and it was our voluntary decision… then you have to accept the rudeness, and if they decide that they have that jurisdiction, then you have to follow it,” he said.

“You can’t expect others to respect the law if you say you won’t respect someone else’s law.”

Lord Thomas said any disagreement over Strasbourg’s power to impose Rule 39 should be resolved “politically” within the Council of Europe, which oversees the court.

Speaking on the podcast Judges: Power, Politics and the People, hosted by legal journalist Frances Gibb, he also described his clashes with Liz Truss when she was Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, adding: “Her period as Lord Chancellor exposed the problems that would later arise when she took up higher positions, especially the position of Prime Minister, a person who does not listen, does not take advice and does not understand the Constitution.”