The government's plans to deport asylum seekers arriving in the UK to Rwanda are unlawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled. Three judges have overturned a previous High Court judgment that had decided the east African nation could be considered a “safe third country”.
Today's decision from the Court of Appeal was announced by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett during a short hearing in London. The judge stressed that the court reached its conclusion on the law and took “no view whatever” about the political merits of the policy.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he “fundamentally” disagrees with the Court of Appeal's conclusion on the Rwanda policy but respects the court’s decision.
Try MEN Premium for FREE by clicking here for no ads, fun puzzles and brilliant new features.
Lord Burnett, who heard the appeal with Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill in April, said the court ruled by a majority that the policy of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful. He told the court they concluded that deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda mean there is a “real risk” asylum seekers could be returned to their home country and face persecution or other inhumane treatment when they may have a good claim for asylum. “In that sense, Rwanda is not a ‘safe third country’,” the judges found.
Lord Burnett, who disagreed with the other two judges and concurred with the High Court’s ruling, added: “That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement, inadequate. The court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended to address any defects in its asylum processes."
“However," he continued. "The majority believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the proposed removals. In consequence sending anyone to Rwanda would constitute a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with which Parliament has required that the Government must comply.”
In a summary of today's ruling, Lord Burnett said: “The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful.” He concluded: “The Court of Appeal makes clear that its decision implies no view whatever about the political merits or otherwise of the Rwanda policy."
In a 161-page judgment, Sir Geoffrey, who was supported in his ruling by Lord Justice Underhill, said: “Our conclusion on the safety of Rwanda issue means that the Rwanda policy must be declared unlawful.”
In a statement following the ruling, Mr 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.
“Rwanda is a safe country. The High Court agreed. The UNHCR have their own refugee scheme for Libyan refugees in Rwanda. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. 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 Rwandan government responded to the judgment to say it is “one of the safest countries in the world”. When asked by the PA news agency if the Rwandan government was considering intervening in the case in order to appeal against the ruling, a spokesman for the nation’s administration said: “The UK Government is considering an appeal.”
Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo 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.
“We make a significant contribution to dealing with the impacts of the global migration crisis. Rwandans know what it means to be forced to flee home, and to make a new life in a new country. As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans. Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this."
Labour said that the Court of Appeal judgment shows that the government’s plan to stop small boats crossings is “completely unravelling”. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Today’s judgment shows that Rishi Sunak has no plan to fix the Tories’ small boats chaos and his only idea is completely unravelling." She described the Rwanda scheme as "unworkable, unethical and extortionate".
Meanwhile, the charity Asylum Aid, which brought the challenge alongside several asylum seekers, described the Court of Appeal’s ruling as a “vindication of the importance of the Rule of Law and basic fairness when fundamental rights are at stake.” Alison Pickup, the charity’s director, said: “We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has upheld the argument that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers. While we are disappointed that the court has held that the process can be made fair, we are pleased that it has not upheld the High Court’s judgment and has made it clear that the Government needs to ensure that Home Office officials give people more time when they need it."
Campaigners are calling on Home Secretary Suella Braverman to abandon the plans to send migrants to Rwanda altogether. Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, said: “This verdict is some rare good news in an otherwise bleak landscape for human rights in the UK. Hopefully, it will be respected by the government and we can consign this cruel and inhumane proposal to the history books. The Home Secretary should now abandon this unworkable and unethical fever dream of a policy and focus her efforts on fixing our broken and neglected migration system."
Sarah Teather, director of the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) UK, said: “Plans to forcibly send men, women and children seeking sanctuary here to Rwanda are inhuman. They are also completely impractical. They are destructive, and mean slamming the door shut on refugees, denying our duty to offer refugees sanctuary."
