Court of appeal judges have ruled that it is unlawful to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to have their claims processed, in a judgment that delivers a potential hammer blow to government policy.
Rishi Sunak said in a statement that the government would now seek permission to appeal against the decision at the supreme court as he insisted that Rwanda was a safe country and said that the court had agreed with this.
The ruling follows a four-day hearing in April against a high court decision last December that it was lawful to send some asylum seekers, including people arriving on small boats, to Rwanda to have their claims processed rather than dealing with their applications for sanctuary in the UK.
The court ruled that due to deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system there was a real risk that people sent to Rwanda would be returned to their home countries, where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment, when in fact they had a good claim for asylum.
The court’s conclusion was that Rwanda was not a “safe third country” even though assurances provided by the Rwandan government were provided in good faith.
“While I respect the court, I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions,” Sunak said. “I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries, something that the lord chief justice agrees with.”
He added: “The policy of this government is very simple: it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen.”
The illegal migration bill, now passing through parliament, states that all asylum seekers arriving by “irregular means” could face being forcibly removed to Rwanda.
However, Labour claimed the government’s policy on so-called small boats crossing the Channel was now “completely unravelling”. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said the Rwanda scheme was “unworkable, unethical and extortionate”.
The home secretary, Suella Braverman, said she was disappointed by the ruling, adding: “The British people want to stop the boats, and so does this government. That’s what I am determined to deliver and I won’t take a backward step from that.”
Lord Burnett, who heard the appeal with Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill, said the court had ruled by a majority that the policy of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, though he disagreed with the other two judges.
Those who supported the appeal against the ruling included the UN’s refugee agency UNHCR, lawyers, charities and a group of asylum seekers.
The court heard from UNHCR that Rwanda had a record of human rights abuses towards refugees within its borders, including refoulement – forced removal to countries where they are at risk – expulsions and arbitrary detention. The refugee agency said the Home Office would not be able to guarantee the safety of asylum seekers who were deported to the east African country.
But Sir James Eadie KC, counsel for the home secretary, said she was confident that the government of Rwanda would abide by undertakings given in a memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries.
Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania who arrived in the UK by irregular means, crossing the Channel in small boats, brought the case along with the charity Asylum Aid.
The key issue before the court was whether Rwanda was capable of delivering reliable outcomes on asylum claims and whether there was a risk that asylum seekers would be forcibly removed to their home countries after arriving in Rwanda, even if they had strong asylum claims.
The judges found that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would be a breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights.
The judges unanimously rejected other grounds of appeal in the case.
A spokesperson for the government of Rwanda said: “While this is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees.
“Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world and we have been recognised by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.
“Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. The broken global migration system is failing to protect the vulnerable, and empowering criminal smuggling gangs at an immeasurable human cost. When the migrants do arrive, we will welcome them and provide them with the support they’ll need to build new lives in Rwanda.”
Despite both the UK and Rwandan government citing UNHCR’s endorsement of Rwanda as a safe haven for refugees, the refugee agency is implacably opposed to the scheme and believes there is a high risk of refoulement if or when refugees get to Rwanda.
UNHCR has endorsed Rwanda in very limited circumstances as a transit destination for refugees UNHCR has rescued from conditions of torture and trafficking in Libya. This group of refugees have been placed temporarily in Rwanda before UNHCR moves them on for resettlement in a safe third country.
Lawyers for the appellants and human rights campaigners welcomed the ruling.
Toufique Hossain of Duncan Lewis solicitors, who represented some of the appellants, said: “The home secretary’s ‘dream’ and ‘obsession’ is in tatters. The court of appeal has ruled by a majority that Rwanda is not a safe third country. We speak on behalf of all our deeply vulnerable clients in thanking the court for its decision.”
Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “We are relieved that the court of appeal has ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for people who claim asylum. However, we’re disappointed that they have not concluded that the overall policy is unlawful.”
The Law Society said the ruling called into question the government’s whole illegal migration bill, which would place a legal duty on the government to detain and remove those arriving in the UK illegally, to Rwanda or another “safe” third country.
A large backlog of people due to be removed under the bill would increase, the society said, adding: “They will be left in limbo and could remain in detention or government-supported accommodation indefinitely.”
