Controversial government plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda are lawful, the High Court ruled today.
The Home Office won a legal challenge against its policy to send would-be migrants, including those who reached the UK after crossing the Channel in small boats, to the African country.
The decision, announced at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, is a blow to campaigners who hoped to thwart the plan.
Challenges were brought against the policy announced by then-Home Secretary Priti Patel in April, which she described as a "world-first agreement" with the east African nation in a bid to deter migrants from crossing the Channel.
Lord Justice Lewis, sitting with Mr Justice Swift, dismissed the challenges against the policy as a whole, but ruled in favour of eight asylum seekers, finding the government had acted wrongly in their individual cases.
In a summary of the ruling read out in court, Lord Justice Lewis said: "The court has concluded that it is lawful for the Government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom."
He added: "The relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the Refugee Convention and with the statutory and other legal obligations on the Government, including the obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998."
However, he said that the Home Secretary "has not properly considered" the eight individuals' cases, which meant the decisions to send them to Rwanda would be quashed and sent back to be reconsidered.
The first deportation flight - due to take off on June 14 - was grounded amid a series of challenges against individual removals and the policy as a whole.
At a five-day hearing in September, lawyers for several asylum seekers, along with the Public and Commercial Services union and charities Care4Calais and Detention Action, argued that the plans are unlawful.
They told judges that Rwanda is an "authoritarian state" that "tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents".
The High Court in London also heard the Home Office had been told state agents have "regularly targeted" Rwandan refugees in other countries.
UNHCR - the UN Refugee Agency - intervened in the case, telling the court that Rwanda "lacks irreducible minimum components of an accessible, reliable, fair and efficient asylum system", and that the policy would lead to a serious risk of breaches of the Refugee Convention.
In October, lawyers for the charity Asylum Aid also challenged the policy, arguing the policy's procedure is "seriously unfair" and also unlawful.
The policy has also been contested on data protection grounds, with a Sudanese man arguing his personal data has unlawfully been shared with the Rwandan authorities.
Monday's judgments also come as the charity Christian Aid claims the Home Office failed to take the impact of threats caused by climate change to people in Rwanda into account.
The Home Office defended the claims, arguing the Rwandan authorities have given "detailed assurances" over the processing of asylum claims and the ongoing treatment of individuals.
These include assurances that people deported to Rwanda will be provided with "adequate accommodation", food, free medical assistance, education, language and professional development training and "integration programmes", judges were told.
The Home Secretary has provided a minimum of three years' funding for each "relocated individual", and five years' support for anyone granted refugee status if they stay in Rwanda, lawyers also said.
Barristers for the department later told the court that the agreement between the UK and Rwanda contains "very significant safeguarding elements".
Following the judgement, Freedom from Torture chief executive Sonya Sceats, said the organisation was “concerned that today’s decision fails to recognise the serious risks that the Rwanda removals policy presents for survivors of torture”.
She added: “The policy’s inadequate assessment procedure will prevent the Government from taking into account, at least in many cases, a critically important factor in deciding whether an individual is suitable for removal under the Rwanda removals policy - whether they are a survivor of torture.”
Clare Moseley, the founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, said: “We are disappointed with the outcome and are discussing next steps with our legal team.
"We remain steadfast in our opposition to the Rwanda policy and in our determination to ensure that no refugee is forcibly deported.
"This is the first court to consider the lawfulness of the UK-Rwanda deal. We will consider our position in respect of the Court of Appeal."
Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who has revealed it is her “dream” to see media reports of the first deportation flight for Rwanda taking to the skies, said: “Our ground-breaking migration partnership with Rwanda will provide individuals relocated with support to build new lives there, while disrupting the business model of people smuggling gangs putting lives at risk through dangerous and illegal small boat crossings.
“We have always maintained that this policy is lawful and today the court has upheld this.
“I am committed to making this partnership work – my focus remains on moving ahead with the policy as soon as possible and we stand ready to defend against any further legal challenge.”
No10 said it welcomed the judgement, with the Prime Minister’s spokesman insisting it wanted the policy in action “as quickly as possible”.
Hailing the ruling, he added: “It’s an important moment because the court has ruled the policy lawful and, once up and running, we will be able to move ahead with sending people to Rwanda as a safe country to have their claims processed.
“That remains the ambition.”
However, Downing Street is braced for a legal appeal, admitting it was “a possibility”.
Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper fumed: "The Rwanda scheme is a damaging distraction from the urgent action the Government should be taking to go after the criminal gangs and sort out the asylum system.
“It is unworkable, unethical (and) extortionately expensive.”
* Follow Mirror Politics on Snapchat , Tiktok , Twitter and Facebook .
