The government’s controversial flagship policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has been blocked after senior judges ruled the African country is “not safe”.
The Home Office drew up plans to provide asylum seekers with a one-way ticket to Rwanda, as a central plank of the ‘Stop The Boats’ pledge on immigration.
In December, High Court judges rejected legal challenges to the policy from individual asylum seekers and the charity Asylum Aid.
But in a major ruling on Thursday, the Court of Appeal ruled by a majority of two to one that the policy would put asylum seekers at risk and is unlawful.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he “fundamentally” disagreed with it and annnounced the Government would seek an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she remained "fully committed" to the policy and claimed "phoney humanitarianism" was hindering efforts to stop Channel crossings.
Delivering the ruling, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett of Maldon, sitting with Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill, said: “By a majority, the court allows the appeal on the issues of whether Rwanda is a safe third country.”
The Lord Chief Justice said he disagreed with the decision, but he had been outvoted by the other two judges who had concluded “the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum.
“In that sense Rwanda is not a ‘safe third country’.”
The Lord Chief Justice said the other judges believe the assurances about safety from the Rwanda authorities had not been acted on, but he disagreed and said he believes asylum seekers would be protected.
“I take the view the arrangements put in place provide sufficient safeguards in the context where both governments would be determined to make the agreement work and be seen to do so.”
The legal battle is now expected to move to the Supreme Court for a final decision on the legality of the government’s policy.
The Rwandan Government said it took “issue” with the Court of Appeal’s ruling, with spokeswoman Yolande Makolo saying: “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.
“As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans. Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this.
“Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. The broken global migration system is failing to protect the vulnerable, and empowering criminal smuggling gangs at an immeasurable human cost. When the migrants do arrive, we will welcome them and provide them with the support they’ll need to build new lives in Rwanda.”
The government has faced fierce criticism over the Rwanda policy since it was announced last Spring, amid fears about the country’s human rights record.
It was recently revealed in Home Office figures that the Government could spend £169,000 on every asylum seeker forcibly removed to a third country such as Rwanda.
An economic assessment for the controversial Illegal Migration Bill currently before Parliament shows two in five small boats crossing the Channel would have to be deterred for the government to break even.
The £169,000 cost includes flights and detention plus a £105,000 per person payment to third countries. The figure, however, is an estimate rather than the actual cost of the Rwanda plan.
In the Court of Appeal in April, ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan, and Albania who arrived in the UK on small boats brought a challenge to the deportation policy.
Their lawyers argued 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.
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 insisted 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 Rwanda deportation plan was first announced in April last year, with Home Secretary Suella Braverman making a visit to the country in March to see progress on housing for migrants who are sent there.
Last October, she said a front-page newspaper story “with a plane taking off to Rwanda” is “my dream - it’s my obsession”.
But the plans have so far been thwarted by protracted legal proceedings that are unlikely to end with Thursday’s Court of Appeal ruling.
Ms Braverman said she remained "fully committed" to the policy and, despite the ruling, insisted she still had "every confidence" in the plan while stressing that Rwanda was a safe country.
When asked if she blamed "lefty lawyers" or "the blob" amid the defeat, she told broadcasters: "The system is rigged against the British people, it's as simple as that.
"It's why we're changing the laws through our Illegal Migration Bill."
She then doubled down on her claims in the Commons, telling MPs that "phoney humanitarianism" was holding back plans to tackle Channel crossings.
"Importantly, their concerns were not that conditions in Rwanda would be unsafe, but that there was a possibility that they could be returned to other countries from Rwanda where they may suffer ill treatment.
"It is, therefore, simply incorrect to say that the Court of Appeal has found that conditions in Rwanda make it unsafe for individuals there. The Court of Appeal has ruled, instead, that there is a risk of refoulement to other countries from Rwanda."
As the legal battle wore on, the Illegal Migration Bill was introduced into Parliament, seeking to stop anyone coming to the UK illegally after passing through a safe country being allowed to stay in the country.
Those migrants would be automatically detained and sent to their home country or a country such as Rwanda.
The Bill suffered a series of defeats in the House of Lords on Tuesday night, as peers inserted demands that the new system complies with international treaties, prevents the detention of potential victims of human trafficking, and allows unaccompanied children to make asylum claims.
The Court of Appeal ruling is expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court.
Reacting to the news in Parliament, Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt called it a “mixed judgment” and told MPs: “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.”
The Rwandan Government said it took “issue” with the Court of Appeal’s ruling, with spokeswoman Yolande Makolo saying: “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.
“As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans. Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this.
“Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. The broken global migration system is failing to protect the vulnerable, and empowering criminal smuggling gangs at an immeasurable human cost. When the migrants do arrive, we will welcome them and provide them with the support they’ll need to build new lives in Rwanda.”
Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Today’s judgment shows that Rishi Sunak has no plan to fix the Tories’ small boats chaos and his only idea is completely unravelling.
“Ministers were forced to admit this week that it will cost £169,000 to send each person to Rwanda on top of the £140m of taxpayers’ money they have already spent. Now the court has found that ministers didn’t even do the basic work to make sure the scheme was legal or safe.
The Labour MP added: “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.
“They should now put that money into Labour’s plan to go after the criminal gangs, clear the asylum backlog and stop dangerous boat crossings that are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk.”
London Mayor Sadiq Khan said the Government’s Rwanda policy is “callous and unworkable”.
“It shames us as a nation,” he tweeted.
