The government’s offer to take in 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years is far “too low, too slow and too narrow”, according to a statement published by 300 senior lawyers, former law lords and retired judges.

Do lawyers have the right to question Tory asylum policy? Read more

Prominent supporters of the legal initiative, denouncing the UK’s asylum policy as “deeply inadequate” on Monday, include the former president of the supreme court, Lord Phillips, three ex-law lords – Steyn, Walker and Woolf – as well as a former president of the European court of human rights, Sir Nicolas Bratza, and a one-time director of public prosecutions, Lord MacDonald.

The combined assault by senior figures from the legal profession is also backed by more than a hundred QCs, the government’s former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Alex Carlile, and five judges who recently sat in the court of appeal – Sir Henry Brooke, Sir Richard Buxton, Sir Anthony Hooper, Sir Alan Moses and Sir Stephen Sedley.

The statement calls for “safe and legal routes to the UK” to be established, for Britain to accept a “fair and proportionate share of refugees”, and suspension of the Dublin system, which compels asylum-seekers to claim asylum in the first country where they set foot in the EU. Although no serving judges have signed, the initiative continues the process of the judiciary becoming more outspoken in political affairs.

Theresa May: only migrants with jobs should be let in to UK Read more

Among signatories is Catriona Jarvis, a retired judge in the upper tribunal of the immigration and asylum chamber, who said: “When history considers how our country has behaved in this moment of serious crisis, do we want to be judged as having wrung our hands while standing back in the face of immense suffering?

“We have a legal and moral responsibility to provide protection that is not beyond our capabilities and should not be beyond our will.”



Sedley, a court of appeal justice, said: “It is within the UK’s power to curtail the lethal boat traffic by enabling refugees from Syria and Iraq to travel here lawfully in order to apply for asylum.



“Since refuge from persecution and war is a universal human right, this means recognising that our government’s present offer to take no more than 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years is wholly inadequate. As a stable and prosperous country, we can do better than this.”

Buxton, another former appeal court justice, said: “I was an asylum judge for more than twenty years, and the Syria crisis dwarfs all previous experience. The first priority in this exceptional situation is for the law to enable safe and lawful routes to this country for genuine asylum seekers, to save them from the depredations of traffickers and danger and death in the Mediterranean.”



Pushpinder Saini QC, of Blackstone Chambers, said: “The letter reflects profound concern in the legal profession, including some of its most senior members, that the government lacks a coherent, just or humane response to the refugee crisis.

The Balkans are now the centre of Europe’s people smuggling web Read more

“We ask that government give these proposals serious consideration. As a nation which once had the foremost reputation as a safe haven for refugees, we have lost our way.”



The scheme to take in 20,000 Syrian refugees was announced by the prime minister in early September. At the time David Cameron said: “The whole country has been deeply moved by the heart-breaking images we have seen.

“It is absolutely right that Britain should fulfil its moral responsibility to help those refugees just as we have done so proudly throughout our history. But in doing so we must use our head and our heart by pursuing a comprehensive approach that tackles the causes of the problem as well as the consequences.”

UK policy has been to support refugees in the region where they can remain close to surviving family members.