British courts accused of 'bowing down to international law' after allowing Gazan family to settle under Ukrainian refugee scheme: 'This will open the floodgates!'

The family of refugees made their initial application through the Ukraine Family Scheme and their case was accepted.

The family - a mother, father and four children were living in a Gazan refugee camp after their home was destroyed by an air strike.

The family’s claim was initially denied by a low-tier immigration tribunal based on the fact that it was outside the Ukraine programme’s rules - however, judge Hugo Norton-Taylor overturned the decision on the basis that their situation "outweighed public interest".

Reacting to the case on GB News, commentator Clare Muldoon said: "I do not think it is right that the judges have now overturned the tribunal at the beginning for this family who have come to this country now, legally, under the Ukrainian refugee scheme that was set up for something completely different. When Russia did invade the Ukraine.

"And now this family from Gaza are claiming that through their lawyers and through the legal team, to have the right to remain in this country."

She fumed: "Why are our judges in this country folding to international law and the ECHR so easily, so often to the detriment of this country itself?"

Muldoon emphasised the need for greater clarity from Westminster, stating: "I think we need closure in this, we need guidance from the Government."

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:

• Palestinian migrants allowed to live in Britain after applying through scheme meant for UKRAINIANS
• Starmer spends £22,000 on each illegal migrant returned to Albania onboard £1m private jet
• John Redwood slams 'absurd' immigration case as criminal allowed to stay over chicken nuggets

She suggested that the threshold for successful appeals appears to be too low, stating: "They make a judgment with the facts that are that are presented to them, and it seems as if there's quite a low threshold."

While acknowledging fundamental rights, Muldoon warned: "Not that people shouldn't have a right to live peacefully, not that people shouldn't have a right for shelter, that's a fundamental human right. However, this will open the floodgates."

Citing another controversial case regarding Albanian migrants, Muldoon claimed that there appears to be "no control" in Britain's courts.

She explained: "We have the story about the Albanian family who could not be extradited back to Albania because of the son's dislike for chicken nuggets. This is sound bites. This is stuff coming from the courts.

"But this is the court of public opinion, and again, it seems to be an absolute slap in the face for the populist vote in this country and for people to realise what they can do and take control. There doesn't seem to be any control."

Offering his thoughts on the case, commentator Quentin Letts claimed that the case is "extraordinary" and the judge's decision is "bonkers".

He added: "It's an extraordinary story. This scheme was for Ukrainians Iranians and a Gazan family turns up. They're Gazans, they're not Ukrainians. I think it's just a bonkers finding by the tribunal."

Upper tribunal judge Hugo Norton-Taylor overturned the decision and granted the family of six asylum in the UK on the basis of their Article 8 right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

He said the family’s "extreme and life threatening" situation outweighed the "public interest" of the rules on entry to the UK - set in place to control the number of migrants coming to Britain.