Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
COURT OF APPEAL judges in the UK have rejected a last-ditch legal bid to block the first flight due to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda under a controversial new policy.
The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), which represents more than 80% of Border Force staff, and charities Care4Calais and Detention Action challenged a High Court judge’s refusal to grant an injunction on Friday, which meant the first flight to the east African country could go ahead tomorrow.
Lawyers for the three groups and one person due to be removed asked for the injunction to prevent the 11 people now due on Tuesday’s flight from being taken to Rwanda until the full hearing of whether the policy is lawful next month.
Raza Husain QC argued that the judge who refused to block the flight on Friday, Mr Justice Swift, had wrongly decided the “balance of convenience”.
Lord Justice Singh, sitting with Lady Justice Simler and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, said Mr Justice Swift had “conducted the balancing exercise properly” and did not err in principle nor in the approach he took.
He added: “He weighed all the factors and reached a conclusion which he was reasonably entitled to reach on the material before him.
“This court cannot therefore interfere with that conclusion.”
The judges refused permission for an appeal to the Supreme Court against their decision.
The Home Office has defended the policy and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said the government had anticipated “a lot of teething problems” with the policy, but said the move is necessary to stop illegal people-smuggling rackets on either side of the Channel.
Rory Dunlop QC, for the department, told the court earlier on Monday: “The flight tomorrow is important.
“This is a policy which is intended to deter dangerous and unnecessary journeys, journeys from safe third countries by people who do not need to make that journey to be safe, they can claim in France or wherever it is.
“This is a policy that if it works, could save lives as well as disrupting the model of traffickers.
“Even if we are just talking about cancelling a flight tomorrow, there is prejudice to the public interest, to the enactment of decisions that may have that deterrent effect.”
The High Court heard the UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, has multiple concerns about the system in Rwanda, including discriminatory access to asylum, a lack of legal representation and other “deep-rooted structural problems”.
Dunlop said today: “The Secretary of State has listened and seriously considered the concerns raised by the UNHCR and has deliberately negotiated arrangements to provide assurances in relation to those concerns.”
A second case is being heard in the High Court on Monday afternoon after Asylum Aid, a refugee charity, applied for an urgent interim injunction to stop the Government flying migrants to Rwanda.
Ahead of both hearings on Monday, Johnson told broadcasters during a visit to a farm in Cornwall: “I always said that it will begin with a lot of teething problems and you will have a lot of legal action against it and they will try and delay it – that’s inevitable.
“But what we’re trying to do is stop the business model of criminal gangs who are preying on people moving them across the Channel in unseaworthy vessels, risking their lives and sometimes costing their lives.”
It came as Rwandan high commissioner Johnston Busingye told The Telegraph that his country will be a “safe haven” for migrants, after The Times and the Daily Mail reported that Prince Charles allegedly said in private that the policy is “appalling”.
Johnson declined to comment on whether Charles was wrong in his comments, adding: “This is about making sure that we break the business model of criminal gangs who are not only risking people’s lives but undermining public confidence in legal migration.”
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman later said Johnson “has nothing but respect and admiration for the Prince of Wales, who’s spoken out on a number of issues, not least the environment”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Asylum seeker wants safe country. UK flies them to safe country. What’s the issue? The only legitimate criticism here would be to say Rwanda is not safe, but that’s the only one I can see. An asylum seeker doesn’t get to shop around.
They should open the floodgates and let in all comers especially those fleeing from the dangerous state called France.
@Paul Crowley:
UK didn’t waste any time after leaving the EU, in rejecting many of the tenets of a modern, western, rights-based society. Between the Rwanda renditions and the unilateral action on the international treaty with the EU, among other things, Boris is taking Britain on a slow orbital descent down the toilet bowl.
@Eoin Roche: I actually think they jumped straight into the US way of thinking in the hope they would form a stronger bond…I mean they have the racism and Xenophobia down to a tee!
@Eoin Roche: Honestly, when I read their exemption from the Lisbon Treaty, I thought they’d failed to grasp the concept of human rights. Well, either that or their government was in favour of reserving the right to slave labour for some reason. And here we are today.
Ireland should follow this UK policy when it turns out to be successful.
But but we won’t be allowed to do that because the EU wants migrants from Africa and Asia.
Britain are a rogue state.
@Leo’s Spin Department: Mission Impossible 5….they said it couldn’t be done, but they’re doing it.
I’m keeping my powder dry on this subject until we know how it works out. Too many people pressing the lefty, commie, holier than thou, naive art student button, and Tuttsy Tut Tutting. Hutu they think they are?
@Dominic Carr: no sarcasms please. This is sad for everyone, for victims of these animals and for decent immigrants who pay for what these animals do.
Our governments are making a mockery of human rights, innocent vulnerable people are deprived of them so people who don’t act like humans can have them.
@Rosa Lopez: you are obviously an awful white male filled with hate and should be cancelled. Don’t you know all illegal immigrants are doctors and engineers? And don’t have any of the barbaric culture values of the places they left? Do you even read leftist propag….news?
England are the new Russia
@Metaljester: Really? The hyperbole is strong with you.
@Metaljester: A bit melo-dramatic.
@Metaljester: Surely it’s England ‘Is’. Not ‘Are’? Ain’t it?
have your say