British plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled
Britain’s Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a policy to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful, in a major blow to the Conservative government, which has long described the plan as central to its pledge to stop small boat arrivals.
Judge Robert Reed, one of the five judges who heard the case, said the court supported an earlier Court of Appeal decision declaring the policy unlawful, simply saying: “We agree with their conclusion.”
Judge Reed pointed out a risk of “refoulement” if asylum seekers were to make their claims heard in Rwanda, meaning that genuine refugees could be sent back to their countries of origin and face possible violence, in violation of both domestic and international law.
The judge made the reservation that although appropriate protective measures could be taken in the future, “it has not been demonstrated that these are already in place.”
The ruling is the latest setback for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak after a… turbulent few days in which he dismissed his disruptive home secretary, Suella Braverman, whose duties included overseeing immigration, and brought back into government a centrist predecessor, David Cameron.
The tough Rwanda policy was first announced in April 2022 by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson as he tried to fulfill a Brexit campaign promise to take back control of the country’s borders. Mr Sunak pledged to continue the policy in his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and championed the initiative alongside Ms Braverman, one of its most vocal advocates.
But it was widely criticized from the start by rights groups and opposition politicians, with many pointing this out Rwanda’s troubled human rights record.
It’s been that way ever since chased by Mr Johnson’s successors, Liz Truss and Mr Sunak, each repeating his original, untested argument that the threat of deportation to Rwanda would deter the tens of thousands of people who try to cross the English Channel in small boats every year.
To date, no one has been sent to the small East African country due to a series of legal problems.
The first flight to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was scheduled for June 14, 2022, but that did not happen was founded due to an interim ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which ruled that an Iraqi man should not be deported until his judicial review in Britain is completed. As a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, an international agreement that Britain helped draft after World War II, the country accepts rulings from the court in Strasbourg. (Both the Court and the Convention are completely separate from the European Union.)
Last December, the British High Court ruled in favor of the government, ruling that the Rwanda plan was in principle lawful and in accordance with legal obligations, including those imposed by Parliament under the Human Rights Act 1998.
But in June the Court of Appeal ruled that Rwanda was not a safe third country and that there was a real risk that asylum seekers would be returned to countries where they would face persecution or other inhumane treatment, even if they had a good asylum application. This would constitute a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court said. This is the ruling that was upheld.
The case came before the British Supreme Court last month when five judges heard arguments over three days from the government and opponents of the plan. Judge Reed said the ruling was expedited because of its public interest.
During the hearing, Raza Husain, a lawyer representing 10 asylum seekers from a number of conflict zones, argued that the Rwandan asylum system is “woefully flawed and characterized by acute unfairness.”
James Eadie, representing the government, argued that while Rwanda was “less attractive” than Britain, it was “nevertheless safe” for the asylum seekers, citing the guarantees included in the agreement between the two countries.
Angus McCullough, a lawyer for the United Nations refugee agency, told the judges that it “maintains its unequivocal warning against the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda under the Britain-Rwanda agreement.” the Guardian reported. He cited evidence that a similar policy by Israel had led to the disappearance of some asylum seekers after they arrived in Rwanda.