This new paper for Policy Exchange considers clause 5 of the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which authorises Ministers to decide whether or not the UK will comply with a Rule 39 interim measure made by a judge of the Strasbourg Court.  The paper considers amendments to clause 5 that set to be debated in the House of Lords, denying that they are justified by the moral ideal of the rule of law – or by the principle of judicial independence.  Specifically, the paper argues that section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act, which guarantees judicial independence, does not impose duties on Ministers that are in any way incompatible with clause 5 of the Rwanda Bill.  Parliamentarians should not accept that enacting clause 5 would undermine judicial independence or that section 3 would create any future legal risk.