'Constitutional abomination!' Suella Braverman tears into judge's ruling on Gazan refugees using Ukrainian scheme: 'Human rights gone wrong'

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

The 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".

Criticising the case on GB News, Suella Braverman declared that the decision is a "constitutional abomination" and an example of "human rights gone wrong".

Speaking to Good Afternoon Britain, Braverman declared: "It's an egregious example of human rights gone wrong - this case is a very bad decision, and it presents very terrible consequences potentially for our immigration system.

"The basis upon which this judge has reached his conclusion is flawed, and represents a constitutional abomination, frankly, a great and bad example of judicial overreach."

When asked by host Emily Carver if the blame lies with the judge or the current legislation in Britain, Braverman claimed that it is a "combination of both".

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:

• Judge lambasted by Tory MP for allowing Gazan migrants to stay in UK: 'NOT representing Britons!'
• UK court accused of 'bowing down to ECHR' after allowing Gazan family to stay under Ukrainian scheme
• Palestinian migrants allowed to live in Britain after applying through scheme meant for UKRAINIANS

The former Home Secretary explained: "He said that the Ukrainian refugee scheme is a sufficient legal basis to justify a non-Ukrainian, a Palestinian Gazan family to come and claim refugee status in the UK. It doesn't make any logical sense, it doesn't make any legal sense or constitutional sense.

"It is incredibly dangerous because it does now mean that anyone from any war zone around the world, of which there are many and there are many millions of people in vulnerable, difficult situations - this potentially opens the doors to them piggybacking onto any kind of refugee scheme we have and coming into the UK."

Criticising the judge's position on the case, Braverman added: "This is not what our law says and it's not what the British people want. He has usurped the role of Parliament, and he's writing and inserting his own idea of what the law should say.

"That is not the role of the judiciary in our separation of powers that makes up our Constitution. The judges are there to check that our laws are applied properly, not write the laws. And that's why there must be an avenue to challenge this decision through judicial review."

Calling for the UK to leave the ECHR and Human Rights Act, Braverman stressed that there are many judges who "slavishly worship the mantra of human rights" and "inject human rights claims into every aspect of our immigration laws".

Braverman concluded: "Unfortunately, there are lots of lawyers and judges like this who slavishly worship the mantra of human rights, and are so keen to inject human rights claims into every aspect of our immigration laws such that we've lost control of our borders.

"The solution, legally and politically, is that we need to scrap the HRA, the Human Rights Act, and come out of the European Convention of Human Rights."

Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor 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.