Alyson Kilpatrick

The controversial Illegal Migration Act 2023, which received royal assent in July, provides that those who arrive in the UK irregularly will be detained and then removed, either to their home country or a third country.

NIHRC raised concerns throughout the legislation’s progress through Westminster that the government’s proposals were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and other international standards, noting in particular a failure to protect vulnerable people including children and victims of human trafficking and exploitation.

It also advised that the legislation was incompatible with obligations set out in Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which requires the UK government to ensure there is no diminution of certain human rights and equality protections in the Good Friday Agreement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are named as respondents in the judicial review challenge.

Commenting, Alyson Kilpatrick, NIHRC chief commissioner, said: “The Commission has decided to challenge the Illegal Migration Act in order to protect and uphold fundamental rights.

“We provided advice to government during the bill’s passage through Parliament that sought to amend the legislation and ensure compliance. Exercising our legal powers now is a measure of last resort, but a necessary step to protect those who are most vulnerable and prevent the violations of human rights that will undoubtedly follow if this law remains in place.

“We are concerned that the Act will effectively make it impossible for people who arrive in the UK irregularly to present as refugees. Displaced people often face perilous journeys and are denied access to fundamental rights while trying to find safe pathways to protection. Safe and legal routes of migration are rarely available.

“This law further denies them basic protections. The Act creates sweeping new detention powers, with limited judicial oversight. Proposed removal of vulnerable people seeking refuge to a third country without a guarantee of them necessarily accessing protection is deeply problematic.”