- Court ruling deems government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda illegal
- Home Secretary accuses misuse of asylum system of benefiting people smugglers
- Government to appeal court decision, plans to deport asylum seekers still uncertain
The Home Secretary has stated that “phony humanitarianism” impedes efforts to address minor boat crossings.
Suella Braverman informed MPs that the misuse of the British asylum system “lined the pockets of people smugglers” and “turned our seas into graveyards.”
It follows a ruling by the Court of Appeal that the government’s intentions to send asylum seekers to Rwanda were illegal.
The challenger applauded the ruling, but the government has stated that it will appeal.
Asylum Aid’s spokesperson termed Thursday’s ruling “a vindication of the importance of the rule of law and fundamental fairness.”
In April 2022, a plan to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda was announced to deter English Channel small-boat crossings.
It has been the subject of several legal challenges, the most recent coming from the Court of Appeal. Which ruled that Rwanda had not provided sufficient safeguards to prove that it is a “safe third country.”
Two of the three judges believed that Rwandan asylum seekers might be deported. This indicates that the British government’s immigration policy violates the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture.
Ms. Braverman stated that this did not imply that Rwanda itself was unsafe.
The Home Secretary addressed the House of Commons and stated that while she respected the ruling. It was “disappointing” and that the government would be appealing it.
Ms. Braverman called asylum system “abuse” “unfair” to local populations, taxpayers, and “those who follow the rules.”
She added that it “encourages massive economic migration into Europe, lines the pockets of people smugglers, and transforms our seas into graveyards, all in the name of a phony humanitarianism.”
Shadow Secretary Yvette Cooper stated that the government’s Rwanda plan was “completely unraveling” and that it was “impractical, unethical, and exorbitantly expensive.”
“This is their chaos, their Tory chaos, the chaos of their boats, and their broken asylum system,” she stated.
Rwanda claimed it was “one of the safest countries in the world” and treated refugees well.
Asylum Aid and ten small-boat migrants from Syria, Iraq, and Albania filed the lawsuit.
In an earlier hearing, the High Court had supported the government’s policy, but in this latest phase of the process, the decision was examined by Appeal Court judges Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill.
Lord Burnett sided with the UK government, but the others concluded that the Rwandan government’s assurances were insufficient to ensure that asylum seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would not be returned to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment.
They stated that sending asylum applicants to Rwanda is illegal “until the deficiencies in [its government’s] asylum procedures are addressed.”
The judges emphasized that they all concurred that the Rwandan government’s assurances regarding the policy were given “in good faith.”
Tessa Gregory, a partner at the law firm Leigh Day who represented Asylum Aid in the case, stated, “We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Rwanda removals process is unlawful on the grounds of safety.”
The verdict affirmed “clear deficiencies” in the policy, although not all of the charity’s arguments were accepted.
Freedom From Torture described the court’s decision as a “victory for reason and compassion”
Since it was first declared in April of last year, the Rwanda policy has encountered numerous obstacles.
After a legal challenge was granted in June 2022, the first deportation flight was halted minutes before its scheduled departure.
The High Court upheld the proposal’s legality in December.
The next month, some parties in that case were allowed to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
This week, the Home Office estimated that each person deported and processed under the Rwanda scheme will cost £169,000. Which is more than the current expense of housing an asylum seeker in the UK.
However, the same analysis warned that the cost of lodging an asylum seeker in the United Kingdom could reach £165,000 per person within four years if housing costs continue to rise.
According to the Home Office, it presently spends nearly £7 million per day to house asylum seekers in hotels.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has stated that while he respects the court’s decision, he will do “whatever is necessary” to stop criminal organizations from operating small boat crossings.
When asked if the government was confident that the first deportation flight would take off before the next general election, a Downing Street spokesman responded that it could not “put a timeline on that.”
