Priti Patel will view it as a success if even a single migrant is on the first deportation flight to Rwanda on Tuesday, her aides said on Monday as opponents returned to court to stop it.
Only a handful of migrants refused the right to claim asylum here are due to be on the plane to Kigali, after earlier legal challenges to the Home Secretary’s policy led to dozens of others being removed from the departure list.
An initial attempt to halt the flight was rejected by the High Court on Friday when a judge refused to uphold claims by two charities and a union that migrants sent to Rwanda would be at risk of mistreatment.
Further legal challenges to the policy were being brought today at the Court of Appeal and the High Court, both aimed at securing an injunction to ground Tuesday’s flight.
A succession of individual human rights claims by migrants still destined for departure have also been lodged, leading to speculation that the number of migrants on the flight could fall to zero, even if it is given the judicial green light on Monday.
But sources said Ms Patel — whose scheme has been condemned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and, reportedly, Prince Charles — will regard it as a victory if even one migrant is on board because of the deterrent effect.
An advertising campaign to highlight this point will be launched this week.
Tessa Gregory of law firm Leigh Day, representing the charity Asylum Aid in Monday’s High Court challenge, said the Rwanda scheme was legally and procedurally unfair due to the speed with which migrants were being notified of selection for removal to Rwanda.
She added that “deeply traumatised individuals” should not be flown “to a country to which they have not sought protection and don’t want to go and the UN is now saying is not safe for them”.
In his High Court ruling last week, Mr Justice Swift refused to grant an injunction halting Tuesday’s flight, saying that he did not consider there was any evidence that migrants sent to Rwanda would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, even though it would be “onerous” for those sent there.
