The government’s flagship immigration policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda has been blocked by senior judges.
Last December, the High Court rejected legal challenges to the scheme from individual migrants and the charity Asylum Aid. But as our courts correspondent Tristan Kirk reports, this morning the Court of Appeal ruled by a majority of two-to-one that the policy would put asylum seekers at risk and is unlawful.
Of course, this latest decision is more of a comma than a full stop, with the prime minister saying he “fundamentally” disagreed with it and that the government would seek an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Fundamentally, the court’s ruling came down to whether Rwanda was a ‘safe third country’. The Lord Chief Justice ruled for the government, but was outvoted by the other two judges who concluded:
“The deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum.”
While the government naturally hoped to win, it may consider any news cycle which reminds voters it is doing everything it can to make the Rwanda scheme happen, a positive. The problem with this theory is that it is not obviously working. Labour repeatedly outpolls the Tories on who has the best policies on immigration.
Moreover, research by Luke Tryl of More in Common earlier this year found that the public’s attitudes to the scheme are more nuanced than often cited. While a plurality support it, they want exemptions to the ‘no asylum’ rule for many who might cross the Channel in a small boat, such as women fleeing persecution, children and victims of modern slavery.
One way Labour has sought to outflank the Conservatives is by making the argument that the Rwanda policy does no work and is too costly. It can point to the fact that, thus far, not a single migrant has been sent to the country (despite a payment of £140m to Kigali) and that, according to the government’s own figures, each person removed could cost £169,000.
As the lawyer and blogger David Allan Green points out in his Substack, what makes today’s ruling potentially wide-ranging is that, by stating the policy itself is unlawful, it means that there are “no current circumstances where a removal would be lawful.” This goes further than prior rulings by the High Court that each individual removal happened to be unlawful because the proper process had not been followed.
Everyone’s other favourite barrister-cum-blogger, Colin Yeo, predicts the case is highly likely to proceed to the Supreme Court given the split decision. Until that time, he writes, no deportations can take place. Yeo concludes that, regardless of the outcome, it will probably move forward to the European Court of Human Rights.
“Stand by for the Tories putting leaving the ECHR in their manifesto,” tweeted the Sunday Times’ Tim Shipman this morning. Because what the Good Friday Agreement needs is more stress-testing.
In the comment pages, Andy Burnham says we must end right-to-buy and build more social housing to fix Britain. Josh Barrie warns(?) us to prepare for chilled red wines at this year’s barbecues. While Emma Firth urges us to go topless this summer like Miriam Margolyes. There will be fewer wine stains, I suppose.
And finally, Arsenal are step closer to signing Declan Rice, Spurs confirm James Maddison and having bought every living player last summer, Chelsea are now selling them. The transfer window is more fun than actual football.
Bonus ‘and finally’: I don’t feel good about sharing it, and you should feel thoroughly ashamed for clicking, but this is a picture of Rishi Sunak, age 43, standing next to the tallest MP in parliament.
This article appears in our newsletter, West End Final – delivered 4pm daily – bringing you the very best of the paper, from culture and comment to features and sport. Sign up here.
