Campaigners have today lost out at the High Court with their bid to block the Government’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda. That means the first flight will go ahead on Tuesday.
The migrants are set to be given a one-way ticket to the east African nation as part of Home Secretary Priti Patel’s bid to stop the Channel crossings. It wasn't just campaign groups who asked the court to block the flight; a union had also asked the judges to block next week's flight.
It has been reported that up to 130 people had been notified they could be removed as part of the operation. The court heard that 31 people were due to leave on the first flight on Tuesday, and the Home Office is planning to schedule more flights this year.
READ MORE: Montpelier High School - the 'best school in Bristol' - gets worst Ofsted rating
In today's court lawyers for almost 100 migrants had submitted legal challenges asking for them to stay in the UK. It is anticipated the rest of the migrants are set to follow suit with legal challenges.
The first stage of action was brought today (June 10) by lawyers on behalf of two migrants they were joined alongside the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), which represents more than 80% of Border Force staff, as well as groups Care4Calais and Detention Action who are challenging the policy on behalf of everyone affected.
Judge Mr Justice Swift ruled against the claim. He said: “I do not consider that the balance of convivence favours the grant of the generic relief.” Throughout the proceedings it was revealed that the Home Office had already cancelled removal directions for three people set to be on the first flight. It was also revealed that two more will also have them cancelled.
The two remaining migrants who made the claim are currently still due to be removed on the flight. In the hearing, Raza Husain QC, for the claimants, told the court the “procedure is simply unsafe.”
Raza Husain QC also called for an evidence-based assessment for the policy, “not an aspirational basis, or hopes”. Later on the barrister said that the agreement between the two countries, known as a Memorandum of Understanding, was “unenforceable”.
He added: "Nothing monitors it, there’s no evidence of structural change. The risks are just too high." He also went on and told the court that assertions by the Home Office that UN refugee agency the UNHCR had given the plans the “green light” was a “false claim”.
Despite that, the Home Office lawyers said that legal action should not be allowed to derail the plans and urged the court to reject the application.
They argued that there was a “strong public interest in permitting these removals to proceed as scheduled.” They added: “clear public interest in deterring the making of dangerous journeys and the activities of criminal smugglers”.
Previously the department has said that it expected legal challenges but is “determined to deliver this new partnership.” They have insisted that the policy “fully complies with international and national law.”
Downing Street has also said that Prime Minister Boris Johnson remains confident that the policy is legal. Not long after the judgement was concluded, Mr Justice Swift granted the claimants permission to appeal, suggesting Court of Appeal judges would hear the case on Monday.
