[scott_w]

No, it hasn’t. The court ruled that there’s nothing in U.K. law that bars specific flights but they didn’t rule on the legality of the policy itself.

This will be challenged at the court of appeal and will, eventually, be found a breach of international law.

[88]

So it’s illegal in your opinion but not in actual fact?

[scott_w]

It’s normal for the high court to side with the government in these cases only for them to be overturned on appeal. That’s not my opinion, that’s the experience of immigration lawyers.

So yes, the policy is unlawful _in fact_ but the legal process needs to catch up to that.

[88]

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

So it is not illegal.

[scott_w]

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.

[camjw]

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.)

[scott_w]

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.