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.
THE UK GOVERNMENT’S plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda are lawful, the country’s High Court has ruled.
Several challenges were brought against the proposals 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.
Current British Home Secretary Suella Braverman declared the policy her “dream” and “obsession” but the first deportation flight – due to take off on June 14 – was then grounded amid a series of objections against individual removals and the policy as a whole.
However, at Britain’s High Court in London today, senior judges rejected arguments that the plans to provide one-way tickets to the east African nation were unlawful.
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.
It is likely that today’s decision will be appealed against.
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 British 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.
Lord Justice Lewis said a further hearing would take place in mid-January to handle the consequences of the judgment, including costs and applications to go to the Court of Appeal.
At a five-day hearing in September, lawyers for several asylum seekers – along with the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) and charities Care4Calais and Detention Action – argued the plans are unlawful and that Rwanda “tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”.
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.
At a further hearing in October, lawyers for the charity Asylum Aid also challenged the policy, arguing that the procedure is “seriously unfair” and also unlawful, with asylum seekers put at risk of being removed without access to legal advice.
The Home Office defended the claims, with lawyers arguing the memorandum of understanding agreed between the UK and Rwanda provides assurances that ensure everyone sent there will have a “safe and effective” refugee status determination procedure.
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, as part of plans that have cost at least £120 million.
Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo said: “We welcome this decision and stand ready to offer asylum seekers and migrants safety and the opportunity to build a new life in Rwanda.
“This is a positive step in our quest to contribute innovative, long-term solutions to the global migration crisis.”
Detention Action and Care4Calais both said they were disappointed with the ruling and were considering whether to appeal against the decision.
Deputy director of Detention Action James Wilson said: “However, we will fight on. The Rwanda policy is brutal and harmful.”
Care4Calais founder Clare Moseley said: “We remain steadfast in our opposition to the Rwanda policy and in our determination to ensure that no refugee is forcibly deported.”
Leigh Day solicitor Carolin Ott, who represents Asylum Aid, said the charity “remains seriously concerned that the curtailed process that has been adopted to forcibly remove asylum seekers from the UK means they will be denied effective access to legal advice and the court”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
One of the worrying trends in the last few years is the re-emergence of anti Semitism amongst far right and far left ideologues.
@Ned Gerblansky: hmmm I’d contest your point there. I think the left have given rise to anti-Zionism which is not the same as anti-semitism, they’ve some valid points when it comes to this giving the handling of issues in the Middle East.
It is in fact the far right, the likes of trump and the rest that set a precedent and target one or two groups and suddenly it’s a free for all when it comes to attacking certain groups, ethnicities etc for others to attack.
@Ned Gerblansky: there is a huge difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and you appear to be eliding the difference. The latter position is common on the Left including Left Wing Jewish groups.
@The Guy is Here: I disagree. There is a rise of antisemitism and you can call it anti Zionism if you wish. I myself while pro Israeli reject Zionism but I can see that position used for intolerance. There is a simple fact in relation to antisemitism in the western world. Jews are living in fear & many of them are emigrating to Israel. Now we can have a whole argument about Israeli behaviour in relation to it’s neighbours but how does that correlate with British French and German Jews. Also while we agree in relation to trump & his light on the right you failed to mention Corbyns labour party on the left in the UK which not only covered up antisemitism it promotes. In my view antisemitism is always a sign trouble is coming & we are already well down that road.
@The Guy is Here: “I think the left have given rise to anti-Zionism”
The lefts opposition to Zionism has become a convenient cover for many plain old anti-semites. Anti-semitism has been on the rise on the left side of the spectrum for some time.
Hate crimes against Jews in New York for instance have shot up in recent years and they are almost always perpetrated by non whites. You cannot pin those on the far right.
Basically far right and far left are two sides of the same coin and both should be shunned.
@The Guy is Here: Not wanting Jews to have a homeland IS anti-semetic, it is in fact growing rapidly in far left circles… ask the Labour Party in the UK. Far left circle ideologies tell them that “the Jews” have influence in everything and too much “wealth” & “privilege”. Growing Communist communities in fact DO talk about Jews ideally “redistributing” their money. Much akin to what Hitler did in Germany by taking over Jewish businesses.
“Trump” isn’t “far right”… the KKK is far right. If you continue painting someone who isn’t “far right” or “anti-semetic” to be so… you in fact are causing people to not take future “far right” accusations seriously… and thus contributing to the hostile environment Jews increasingly have to live in.
@Will: the far right and far left are not the same. Your point are weak and reductionist and your knowledge is clearly redundant.
@Mjhint: your point died at pro Israel.
@The Guy is Here: The far left and the far right are extremists and both have a tendency towards violence in order to achieve their aims. They are most definitely two sides of the same coin.
You haven’t proposed an argument and went straight to personal attacks. I think I can dismiss you’re opinion based on that alone.
I bet you frequent many a far left conspiracy site.
@Mjhint:: I disagree, antisemitism is and always will be there, to pretend it is not will not solve anything. The way the so-called democracy of Israel treats its neighbors and especially the brutal treatment of the Palestinians does them no favours, carrying out crimes against humanity is not the answer for a people who have endured crimes against humanity and they of all people should know better. You cant claim the high moral ground while they do what they do. If the Palestinian question was resolved in a humane manner then that would reduce an lot of anti-Israel sentiment.
@The Guy is Here: are you suggesting we get rid of Israel?
@Da_Dell: I completely agree with you in relation to the Palestinian question & Israel’s behaviour in relation to this is disgraceful. It is the case though that Israel is only 50% of the problem. Far more Palestinians are killed by their own side & nothing about it. This is a complex matter & Israel should be held to account particularly by it’s ally across the Atlantic but the attitudes on the Arab side needs to be addressed & it’s slowly happening.
@Mjhint: I would also agree with what you there .. At some point there needs to be something like in the North .. where you had to say enough is enough, agree that there was and is issues on both sides, draw a line in the sand, shake hands and move forward with a fair negotiated 2 state solution.
@Mjhint: Yip, while neither’s sides wrongs should be dismissed, maybe accepted & move on. The wrongs of either side, will never be able to be righted, to the satisfaction of the other at this stage. I know it will not be easy but if there was some relaxation of the ‘blockade’ of Palestine and let them have some sort of a normal life, it would help reduce the number of extremists etc and maybe stop another generation in abject poverty etc who see Israel as the cause. We saw this in the North, the more freedoms that were won over time, lead then to less of a perceived need for those tactics that won those freedoms and more emphasis on a negotiated solution. Whether same results would have occurred of those were given instead of having to be won is debatable of course.
have your say