Court of Appeal judges rule government plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful 

Court of Appeal judges today found the Rwanda policy to be unlawful and backed a legal challenge by campaigners and asylum seekers. 

Three judges agreed by a majority of two to one that Rwanda was not ‘a safe third’ country, putting a halt to plans to deport Channel migrants to the East African nation so they could claim asylum there. 

The decision is a major blow to the Government’s flagship Illegal Migration Bill and Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s pledge to ‘stop the boats’, although ministers can now appeal to the Supreme Court. 

It prompted immediate anger from both Tory MPs and the Rwandan government, who insisted their country was ‘one of the safest in the world’.

Former minister Sir Simon Clarke said: ‘This is a deeply disappointing ruling in the face of the clear will of Parliament. I would anticipate an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court.

‘We have to be able to control our borders. If the ECHR continues to forestall this, we have to revisit the question of our membership.’

Today’s decision is a major blow to Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s pledge to ‘stop the boats’ through the Illegal Migration Bill 

Ms Braverman on a March visit to Bwiza Riverside Houses in Kigali, where migrants would stay if the Rwanda scheme gets underway 

Today’s ruling overturns an earlier decision by the High Court that the policy was consistent with the Government’s legal obligations. 

This was subsequently appealed by lawyers for some individual asylum seekers and the charity Asylum Aid. 

Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt told MPs this morning: ‘This is clearly a matter for the Home Office to update the House on, we respect the court’s decision and I think there will be a statement later today from the Home Secretary on that matter.’ 

Meanwhile, Rwandan Government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo said: ‘While this is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees. 

‘Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world and we have been recognised by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.

‘We make a significant contribution to dealing with the impacts of the global migration crisis. Rwandans know what it means to be forced to flee home, and to make a new life in a new country.’ 

Ms Makolo said migrants to Rwanda would be ‘welcomed’ and given ‘the support they need to build new lives’. 

The Court of Appeal’s decision was announced by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett during a short hearing in London, where he stressed the court reached its conclusion on the law and took ‘no view whatsoever’ about the political merits of the policy.

Lord Burnett, who heard the appeal with Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill in April, said the court ruled by a majority that the policy of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.

He told the court Sir Geoffrey and Lord Justice Underhill concluded that deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda mean there is a ‘real risk’ asylum seekers could be returned to their home country and face persecution or other inhumane treatment when they may have a good claim for asylum.

He added the two judges found that: ‘In that sense Rwanda is not a ‘safe third country’.’

Under the proposals announced last April, any adult who enters Britain illegally could be sent on a one-way ticket to the African country to have their asylum claim processed.

Ministers hope the prospect of being immediately deported 4,000 miles away would put off migrants planning to travel to Britain by illegal means.  

However, over the past 12 months, no migrants have been sent to Rwanda from the UK as the Government battles a series of legal challenges. 

Today, a YouGov survey found half of Britons think it is unlikely migrants will ever be deported to Rwanda. 

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper MP said: ‘Time and again, ministers have gone for gimmicks instead of getting a grip, and slogans instead of solutions, while the Tory boats chaos has got worse. 

‘The Rwanda scheme is unworkable, unethical and extortionate, a costly and damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking.’

Issuing this morning’s ruling, Lord Burnett said: ‘The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful.

‘Finally, the Court of Appeal makes clear that its decision implies no view whatever about the political merits or otherwise of the Rwanda policy.

‘Those are entirely a matter for the Government, on which the court has nothing to say.

‘The court’s concern is only whether the policy complies with the law as laid down by Parliament.’

The Lord Chief Justice said he reached the opposite conclusion to the other two judges and found that the procedures put in place under the Rwanda agreement, and the assurances given by the Rwandan government, are ‘sufficient to ensure that there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy will be wrongly returned to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment’.

He concluded that the chances of failed asylum seekers being returned to their country of origin are ‘low’, in part because Rwanda has no agreements in place with any of those countries.

Lord Burnett added: ‘In addition, extensive monitoring arrangements, formal and informal, of all those sent to Rwanda and their asylum claims once there provide powerful protection.

‘The arrangements put in place provide sufficient safeguards in a context where both governments will be determined to make the agreement work and be seen to do so.’

*BELOW IS A SUMMARY OF TODAY’S JUDGMENT* 

A group of up to 80 migrants are brought ashore at Dover marine last week after crossing the English Channel 

As of Monday, 11,328 asylum seekers in 254 boats have made the perilous journey across the Dover Strait so far this year 

In December last year, two judges at the High Court dismissed a series of legal bids against the plans, finding the Rwanda proposals were consistent with the Government’s legal obligations.

However, lawyers for some individual asylum seekers and the charity Asylum Aid brought the successful challenge against their decision at the Court of Appeal.

At a hearing in April, lawyers for the group of asylum seekers argued that the High Court ‘showed excessive deference’ to the Home Office’s assessment that assurances made by the Rwandan authorities ‘provide a sufficient guarantee to protect relocated asylum-seekers’ from a risk of torture or inhuman treatment.

The appeal judges were told that material provided by the Rwandan authorities ‘lacked credibility, consisting of blanket denials and clear contradictions’.

Charity Freedom from Torture, which intervened in the appeal, also argued the speed of the process means there is no ‘adequate opportunity’ to identify torture survivors.

Lawyers for the Home Office opposed the appeal, telling the court the Rwandan government has ‘indicated a clear willingness to co-operate with international monitoring mechanisms’ and that there are ‘reciprocal obligations with strong incentives for compliance’.

The hearing was told that some evidence about whether the Rwandan government would comply with its obligations came from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office ‘based on experience of bilateral relations extending over almost 25 years’ and that the Government is ‘confident the Rwandan authorities will comply with the assurances’.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling comes days after the Home Office’s own figures showed the Government could spend £169,000 on every asylum seeker forcibly removed to a third country such as Rwanda.

Nearly two in five people would need to be deterred from crossing the Channel in small boats for the the Illegal Migration Bill to break even, the economic impact assessment published on Monday said.

The Rwanda Policy is a key part of Rishi Sunak’s Illegal Migration Bill. The PM is seen in the Commons yesterday 

The £169,000 cost includes flights and detention, as well as a £105,000 per person payment to third countries.

By contrast, the savings from ‘reduced asylum support’ are estimated at £106,000 per person, rising to £165,000 if the ‘per night cost’ of hotels continues to soar. 

The sums are estimates not based on the true cost of the ‘commercially sensitive’ Rwanda scheme, which was enacted by Boris Johnson’s government last April after a £120m deal with Kigali.

Charity Asylum Aid, which brought the challenge alongside several asylum seekers, today described the Court of Appeal’s ruling as a ‘vindication of the importance of the Rule of Law and basic fairness when fundamental rights are at stake.’

Alison Pickup, the charity’s director, said: ‘We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has upheld the argument that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers.

‘While we are disappointed that the court has held that the process can be made fair, we are pleased that it has not upheld the High Court’s judgment and has made it clear that the Government needs to ensure that Home Office officials give people more time when they need it.

‘Basic standards of fairness and decency require that individuals are told why a decision as significant as sending them to a country thousands of miles away is being made, and have a fair chance to set out their case on all aspects of that decision.

‘The Court of Appeal’s judgment is a vindication of the importance of the Rule of Law and basic fairness when fundamental rights are at stake.’

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch called on Ms Braverman to abandon the Rwanda policy, describing it as an ‘unworkable and unethical fever dream’.

Yasmine Ahmed, its UK director, said: ‘This verdict is some rare good news in an otherwise bleak landscape for human rights in the UK. Hopefully, it will be respected by the government and we can consign this cruel and inhumane proposal to the history books.

‘The Home Secretary should now abandon this unworkable and unethical fever dream of a policy and focus her efforts on fixing our broken and neglected migration system.

‘This verdict presents the Government with an opportunity to change course. Rather than treating human beings like cargo it can ship elsewhere, it should be focusing on ending the hostile environment towards refugees and asylum seekers.’

Today, a YouGov survey found half of Britons think it is unlikely migrants will ever be deported to Rwanda

If passed, the Migration Bill would see the law changed so that people who come to the UK illegally through a safe country are not allowed to stay – instead being detained and removed, either to their home country or a country such as Rwanda.

However – in a further blow to the Government – the Bill was significantly softened last night after Labour and Lib Dem peers forced through a series of major changes in the House of Lords. 

They added a requirement that the Government complies with international treaties, removed the power for the new law to be applied retrospectively, stopped potential victims of human trafficking being detained before their cases are considered, and let unaccompanied children make asylum claims.

In response, a Conservative spokesman said: ‘Today’s vote proves what we already knew – the Labour Party cannot be trusted to stop the boats and the gangs that profit.’

The first amendment on following international law was voted in by 222 to 179. Two Tories – Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Cormack – voted against the Government.

In the second defeat, voted through by 219 to 177, the Government lost the power to deport migrants who arrived between March and the passing of the law.

This map shows how the Rwanda scheme would work if ministers are able to see off legal challenges  

The third blow to Rishi Sunak meant potential trafficking victims would no longer be held or removed before being assessed.

That amendment was passed 210 to 145. And a fourth change meaning unaccompanied children could make asylum claims was also passed, by 185 to 133.

When the bill returns to the Commons, liberal Tories could join opposition MPs to ensure the Lords amendments are enshrined in law.

So far this year, 11,328 migrants have made the perilous journey across the 21-mile Dover Straits in 254 boats.