Always on the move. Always, always on the move.

Yeah.

Hello and welcome everybody to the Lawmanity podcast, where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism

and discuss the different ways that law can oppress people but can also lead to real social change

I’m Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and activist based in Scotland and your host on the Lawmanity podcast.



We’re here today to help listeners understand how the law can be used to achieve really significant change by looking at how Alison Pickup and her colleagues at the charity Asylum Aid led a successful campaign to challenge the UK Government's Rwanda policy that went all the way to the UK Supreme Court.



Last week, in Episode 1, Alison reflects on her role as a lawyer and activist in that campaign, describes the challenges of bringing high stakes litigation. She also explained the real life impact that the Supreme Court case had for people seeking asylum across the UK.



So hello, Alison, you highlighted some of the legal challenges that your team and others brought to the Rwanda policy and we ended on the huge win from the Supreme Court. But I understand unfortunately that the story doesn’t end there! After the Supreme Court found that Rwanda was not a safe place to return asylum seekers to, can you tell us what the UK Government’s response was to that ruling?

The government then introduced legislation in Parliament in the Safety of Rwanda Act, which legislated to say that yes, Rwanda is a safe place, and to try to create a framework which would allow the Home Office to go ahead and remove people to Rwanda without effective scrutiny by the courts, because Parliament had said that Rwanda was safe.

And so Asylum Aid again kind of challenged that - both in our own name, but we also worked across the sector to make sure that any individuals who were affected had the arguments and could bring challenges too.

And that challenge was ongoing when the [UK] General Election was called. I think as a result of that challenge, no one was removed to Rwanda before the election, and obviously then after the election and new government abandoned the plan and committed to Asylum Aid in settling the claim, they would repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act

That second attempt, they started detaining people in May or June last year for removal to Rwanda, causing a huge amount of stress again to people, and we saw real harm done to people through that action. And I think there was something particularly cruel about the Rwanda scheme in the deterrent purpose because the Home Office was trying to use individual asylum seekers who come here seeking protection, punishing them to deter others,

But I also believe that and you know what you said earlier about how it buoyed up other colleagues and I saw that internally as well. I also think for clients, I hope that them knowing that somebody was standing up and fighting this policy helped people to survive that really difficult period as well. And then ultimately of course the policy has been abandoned and they're not being threatened with removal to Rwanda at least, now.

Which is, which is such a super result and I agree actually. This was an unusual, the Rwanda policy was so cruel and unusually I feel like the cruelty of it did cut through into mainstream media and conversations that you would have with people.

But I also, you got the sense that people were almost incredulous and that this was the [UK] government’s policy and yet many people believed that if the government had a policy it must be lawful.

And I think one of the things that your litigation brought to light was that there is space to challenge policies that can be lawful. And that also allowed people to talk about it in the public space in that way.

Yeah.

And that also allowed people to talk about it in the public space in that way.

That we've seen this morning of those who've lost their life trying to cross the channel to the point that what you need is not unworkable legislation like the Rwanda Bill. What you need to do is to create safe, legal routes for migration, and that hopefully deters the illegal migration that none of us, anybody of any political party, wants to see.

Nobody is choosing to cross the channel on small boats because they think it will be a laugh. They're doing it in desperation.

We do need to see this government abandoning this idea with warehousing migrants on barges. That's clearly inhumane as is deporting them rather than simply assessing their asylum applications quickly. So they're not having to sit around waiting.

We are faced with a deeply broken system and layers of bad legislation which have only made things worse. I hope that the Government re-thinks this bill, this plan and this approach to migration, but I fear that we will be left without the change we need until we change the Government.

Clause 1(2)(b) ) is clear. It says, "This act gives effect to the judgment of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country." But my Lords, this House of Parliament has not determined that this is the case.

just moving on, we’re a few years on, I mean as you outlined the timelines I feel like it happened very quickly but again actually as you pointed out this has been going on for two, almost three,

years. Do you think the change in the law that you've seen, do you think that litigation has had the impact you hoped for? Kind of why are we not? And if so, what more do you think needs to be done and if not where do you think you and your team will be focusing your efforts next?

Yeah, thank you. So yes and no, is answer. Did it have the impact we wanted it to? The Rwanda scheme is dead. Like that was the that was the main objective and the main goal. And so that, you know, not just Asylum Aid, but all of the other people who were involved in the litigation and the campaigns, it was really a whole huge partnership across the sector.

I also, as I mentioned, I think the findings that the Court of Appeal made in our case about what procedural fairness requires in this context, that was a real win, although they dismissed our case because they said that Home Office could change the policy and then it would be lawful. So it wasn't inherently unfair. Those findings are going to be really important. Whatever scheme or plan a government may come up with for processing asylum claims, we have really clear statements from the Court of Appeal about the importance of access to legal representation. I think, a clear finding that seven days is in the majority of cases obviously not enough time to prepare a case is a really important finding going forward.



What still needs to change, you know, this government hasn't abandoned the idea of inadmissibility. So the idea that you can say to someone who comes here and claims protection and says I am a refugee. Oh, we're not even going to consider whether you're a refugee. We're going to send you to another country to consider that, that kind of shirking of responsibility under the Refugee Convention. That is still a policy of this government.

You know, the numbers are smaller. There isn't a Rwanda in sight, but it's still there and it's still a real threat. And we, one, you know, Asylum Aid really strongly believes in the right to territorial of the asylum. If you arrive in the UK, you should have your asylum claim considered and processed here. So that is another change we would like to see.

But if there is another, you know, if there are, it is an increase in the use of inadmissibility processes, third country removals, then those findings on procedural fairness will be really important.

And also, I think the strength of the findings from the Supreme Court on what is required for a country to be truly safe as a third country.

The other piece that's still in the background is although the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is repealing most of the Illegal Migration Act. There are some parts of it that are being left on the statute books and that includes Section 59, which hasn't been brought into force yet. So Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, which basically extends the number of the countries from which asylum claims are just automatically inadmissible, beyond EU countries, to countries including India, Georgia and Albania, from which we know that there are people who are refugees. There are people who are survivors of trafficking and at risk of retrafficking. There are, you know, in the Indian and Georgian context, LGBTQ people who are refugees, and if that provision is brought into force, it will prevent those people from having their claims considered at all, and that really worries me that that's staying.

If it is brought into force, again, I think the findings from the Court of Appeal about what a fair process looks like and people actually having access to justice and being able to meaningfully challenge those assumptions that underpin that policy, that there's a, you know, the win is still important there, but there's still a change that needs to be made in the law as well.

Brilliant. Thank you very much for that really clear summary. And I think that actually if you look back, that is a list of accomplishments to be proud of for you and your team. And but also exactly like the clear sighted lawyer that you are. I appreciate that you have in your sights a number of other areas in which things need to change for people seeking asylum and safety from persecution to actually have the justice and the fair process that they deserve.

So that just leads us on to our final question. , and it's this. So what advice might you have for someone who's listening out there who might be a younger version of you, wants to be you when they grow up, who is looking at what you've accomplished today leading more than one public interest litigation team. And wants to know how to get there. What advice would you give them, now?

I think my number one piece of advice is don't hurry. Like I think when you're young and enthusiastic, you can be very impatient to get on with your career and with achieving big things, but there's plenty of time and what's important is to really take time to know what you enjoy, what motivates you, where your skills are, and focus on that area.

So for me, it was a very gradual path. You know, I started as a caseworker and realised that I really enjoyed being an advocate in court. And so I ended up qualifying as a barrister. And then, you know, after having practiced for kind of nearly ten years, I then decided I wanted to move more into the NGO world. And so, I just think don't hurry and take your time and learn what's good.

And the other one I would say is colleagues, partnership network, is really important.



You, this work can be really challenging emotionally, as well as stressful, it can be very tiring. You can't do it alone and you need to build that network in, you know, in your workplace with colleagues in the sector, with people who don't work in this world at all, in order to have like really good support around you and people who understand what drives you.



Who are there for you when things get tough is really important.

Amazing.

Thank you for that outstanding advice. And don't rush yourself and also make sure that you are surrounded by people who are going to support and, and bouy you through. What is a journey of any steps as you outline, as opposed to kind of a rush to the finish.

And I think even the discussion of this piece of litigation, how much perseverance it takes over how many stages, over a number of years, and to be honest, I think that there are aspects of this piece of work that it isn't finished yet.

So I'm really pleased that you and your team are still on it and I look forward to what you get up to next. But for today, thank you for your generous time and for, and for answering our questions. And yeah, and I look forward to seeing you personally Alison soon. Maybe up north maybe down south, let's see.

Thank you so much. It's always a pleasure to talk to you.

A huge thank you to my guest today, Alison Pickup from Asylum Aid.

And finally, thanks so much to you, the listener, for tuning into the Lawmanity podcast, and the first in our series highlighting the inspiring cases taken by activist lawyers across the UK.

If you loved this podcast, please do hit the subscribe button, and also like and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might enjoy learning a little bit about how the law really works in practice, and how it can be used to make the world a better, brighter place. Our first series of this podcast has been generously supported by a grant from the Clark Foundation for Legal Education.

The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host, Jen Ang, and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe. And the music you've been listening to is always on the move by Musicians In Exile, a Glasgow-based music project led by people seeking refuge in Scotland. Thanks so much for tuning in today, and see you next time

Always on the move