Asylum seekers and organizations are challenging the legality of the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda before the High Court. The administration wished to keep certain documents secret because they posed a threat to international relations.
As part of a High Court battle against plans to deport Rwandan asylum seekers, the government has been permitted to keep certain internal records about Rwanda secret.
A tiny number of NGOs and asylum-seekers are contesting the Home Office’s plans to grant one-way tickets to the east African nation for people who enter the United Kingdom through small boats in the English Channel. Yet, the flights have been canceled due to last-minute legal challenges.
The Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) attempted to conceal ten excerpts from two documents before a September hearing on the legality of the scheme.
The court heard on Tuesday that the Home Office had previously requested an FCDO official with an understanding of the region to assess their Country Policy and Information Note for Rwanda, a document that summarises the country’s conditions.
The FCDO argued that the comments added to the document and the official’s communications were immune from disclosure due to the public interest, as they could affect international relations.
Lord Justice Lewis determined on Wednesday that four of the excerpts, as well as particular terms in others, might be withheld based on public interest immunity.
He determined that some of the suppressed words were already in the public domain and had “evidential significance” to the primary case against the Home Office, so they could be disclosed.
Lord Justice Lewis stated that additional terms were not in the public domain and that their disclosure would do “severe injury to the public interest.”
Christopher Knight, who represents eight asylum seekers, the Public and Commercial Services union, Detention Action, and Care4Calais, opposed the bid to keep the documents redacted and stated that the Home Office had already provided “a substantial body of evidence rebutting the government’s criticisms of the government of Rwanda.”
Mr. Knight cited one of the memos authored by the unnamed FCDO official, which stated that torture and “even murder” is acceptable in Rwanda.
In July, court documents showed that the United Kingdom’s High Commissioner to Rwanda advised against the idea because Rwanda “had been accused of recruiting refugees for violent operations in neighboring countries.”
According to the documents, Rwanda was initially omitted from the shortlist of potential partner nations for the Home Office’s proposed immigration policy due to human rights concerns.
The proposal was not to pursue Rwanda as a viable option, but the administration proceeded nevertheless.
Clare Moseley, the founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, one of the groups filing the case, asserted that “the public has a right to know” all the facts.
“If we are to pursue this breathtakingly terrible approach, which could render our country complicit in human rights breaches, then the public has a responsibility to scrutinize the decisions,” she said.
“Previously revealed records indicate the Foreign Office urged the government against sending refugees to Rwanda owing to the country’s terrible human rights record.
“The Home Office must cease its attempts to deceive the people and tell them the truth.” The Home Office and its ministers are aware that the Rwanda strategy is cruel and barbaric and will fail.
Two of the excerpts, according to Lord Justice Lewis, included “quite brief generalizations, stated in part in imprecise language.”
He continued, “I emphasize that I express no opinion on the merits of any of the claims for judicial review or on whether or not any of the grounds of the challenge will be established.”
This decision is limited to the subject of whether or not certain pieces of evidence should be withheld based on public interest immunity.
