I’m actually supportive of most aspects of the Government’s Immigration Bill. The current system is explited by lawyers so that simple cases takes the best part of a decade to resolve.
In a welcome move, the Immigration Bill does enshrine various UN conventions – including the Convention Against Torture – in our domestic law. However, in my earlier post, I outlined how the Immigration Bill violates key provisions of that same UN Convention Against Torture – by, for instance requiring ( see clause 122b ) an asylum seeker to prove they would face a worse risk of torture if returned home, than would be usual in their country.
The test should not (and is not under the UN convention) a worse risk of torture than other citizens, but whether there is any significant risk at all.
Ironically it means the more despotic a regime is, the more easily one could deport people back there as if they torture and maim everyone with impunity then you are at no worse risk.
I am sure that this clause will be changed, but you do have to worry about how it got in there in the first place.