Lord Justice Lewis states that the controversial strategy is “compatible with the refugee convention,” but determines that the circumstances of the first individuals to be sent to the country were not “adequately considered.”
The High Court found that the government’s proposal to deport asylum applicants to Rwanda is legal.
Lord Justice Lewis stated that Boris Johnson’s contentious stance was “compatible with the refugee convention.”
However, he stated that the home secretary should consider “individual situations” before deporting people to the central African nation.
The senior judge concluded that Priti Patel did not “fully evaluate” the circumstances of the first individuals who were to be deported to Rwanda.
Consequently, their applications would be resubmitted to the current home secretary, Suella Braverman, “for her to reconsider.”
Ms. Braverman, who will deliver a statement on the decision to the House of Commons later, applauded the decision, stating that the “groundbreaking” agreement with Rwanda would “provide individuals relocated with support to build new lives there while disrupting the business model of people smuggling gangs putting lives at risk via dangerous and illegal small boat crossings.
Mr. Johnson also praised the ruling, stating that the policy was “one of the only humane ways to deal with the vile human trafficking gangs that exploit so many people,” while Ms. Patel stated, “No single policy will stop Channel crossings, but this important policy will save lives, help break the business model of the criminal gangs, and prevent asylum abuse.”
However, charities and advocacy groups vowed to contest the ruling to ensure that “people are treated with respect and dignity.”
In April, the government announced its Rwanda policy, under which those asylum seekers who crossed the English Channel by small boat would be transferred to Rwanda to have their claims assessed.
Ms. Patel stated that it would discourage individuals from undertaking the perilous voyage; however, human rights activists, charities, and political parties denounced the scheme as callous.
The first flight was scheduled to take off in June with four passengers, but it was blocked following several legal challenges and a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights that the plan posed “a serious risk of irreversible injury.”
However, both Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss insisted that the strategy would be implemented when they assumed control of Number 10.
‘Particular circumstances’
Eight individuals challenged the decision to send them to Rwanda in the High Court, offering the United Kingdom’s most senior justices the opportunity to rule on the policy as a whole, in addition to the specific cases.
Their attorneys said that the preparations were illegal and that Rwanda “tortures and murders people it views as its opponents.”
However, Home Office staff said that the agreement between the United Kingdom and the country provided assurances that everyone sent there would undergo a “safe and effective” refugee status determination process.
In a Monday summary of his decision, Lord Justice Lewis stated: “The court has ruled that it is permissible for the government to make arrangements for the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda and the determination of their asylum applications in Rwanda, rather than in the United Kingdom.
“According to the evidence presented to this court, the government has made agreements with the government of Rwanda to ensure that the asylum requests of individuals moved to Rwanda are appropriately decided in Rwanda.”
However, he continued: “The home secretary must carefully assess the unique circumstances of each claimant. The home secretary must evaluate whether a particular individual’s circumstances warrant a determination of his asylum claim in the United Kingdom, or whether he should not be transported to Rwanda for other reasons.
The home secretary has not adequately evaluated the unique circumstances of the eight claimants whose cases we have reviewed.
“Because of this, the rulings in these cases will be overturned, and their cases will be sent back to the home secretary for a second look.”
Enver Solomon, the chief executive officer of the Refugee Council, stated that he was “disappointed” by the verdict and that it would “harm the United Kingdom’s reputation as a society that supports human rights.”
He added: “Treating people in search of safety as human cargo and transporting them to another country is a cruel strategy that will result in tremendous human suffering.
The plan is flawed in theory and impractical in practice.
Josie Naughton, CEO of the charity for migrants Choose Love, stated that the court’s judgment “flies in the face of international agreements and accountability.”
She said that it would “tear families apart, prolong persecution, and place victims of torture and trauma back in danger.”
“Safety and possibility”
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary for Labour, did not argue against the decision but called the Rwanda scheme “unworkable, unethical, and extortionately expensive” and “a distracting diversion from the urgent action the government should be taking to go after criminal gangs and fix the asylum system.”
Liberal Democrats concurred, with MP Alistair Carmichael stating that it was “immoral, unproductive, and very expensive for taxpayers.”
He continued, “It would do nothing to prevent perilous Channel crossings or combat people smuggling and human trafficking; instead, it will increase the authority and revenues of criminal gangs.”
The Rwandan government, as expressed by government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo, applauded the decision “We applaud this decision and stand ready to provide asylum-seekers and migrants with protection and the chance to start a new life in Rwanda.
This is a step in the right direction towards our goal of contributing new, long-term solutions to the worldwide migration challenge.
With the possibility of future legal action, it is “difficult” to predict when a flight may take place, as stated by the prime minister’s official spokeswoman.
“We are pleased with the court’s decision that this approach is legal,” he continued.
“The global migration crisis necessitates global solutions, and our relationship with Rwanda is a crucial component of this strategy, helping to disrupt the business model of people-smuggling gangs who put lives at risk via unlawful and perilous small boat crossings.
We are committed to the success of this relationship and are prepared to defend ourselves against any additional legal challenges.
Lord Justice Lewis stated that a second hearing would be held in mid-January to address the judgment’s repercussions, including fees and requests to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
