A legal battle to decide the future of the government’s controversial Rwanda deportation plan for asylum seekers has begun in the Supreme Court.
The Home Office struck a multimillion pound deal with the east African nation a year-and-a-half ago in a bid to deter thousands of people from crossing the Channel to the UK in small boats.
However the policy has been mired in legal difficulties ever since, as the government faced claims it was acting unlawfully and putting genuine asylum seekers in danger.
In June, the Court of Appeal blocked the Rwanda plan, finding there is a “real risk” asylum seekers could be returned to their home countries and face persecution.
The government is now seeking to overturn that ruling with a three-day hearing in front of five Supreme Court justices.
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the government, told judges they are assessing a policy “that the government attaches considerable importance”.
“There’s a serious and pressing need to take effective steps that will act as a deterrent to those undertaking perilous and sometimes life-threatening journeys”, he said.
“This appeal is, at heart, about the judgement made by government as to the future conduct of a friendly foreign state, Rwanda.”
He pointed out Rwanda has made assurances about the safety of its asylum process, and said: “The judgement is about whether or not Rwanda will comply with them.”
If the government loses the court battle, its Rwanda deportation policy will be dead in its current form, delivering a major blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats”.
If successful, a plane to Rwanda loaded with asylum seekers could be planned within days of the ruling, but opponents are likely to look to the European courts for a last-ditch intervention.
The policy would see asylum seekers arriving in the UK without a valid visa being taken straight to Rwanda for their claims to be processed. If granted asylum, they will then begin a new life in Africa rather than in the UK.
The legal fight hinges on whether the Rwandan asylum system is deficient, and those being processed may be returned to countries where they say they faced persecution instead of being given safe haven.
Sir James said opponents to the policy have relied on “historic conduct and the ability or willingness to operate satisfactory systems”, whereas he argued Rwanda’s current position and future promises are more important.
He added: “There are instances of things going wrong in virtually every country that runs asylum. Countries including the UK and her near European neighbours.
“That fact doesn’t suggest the UK or France would not be safe countries for the purposes of article 3 (of the European Convention on Human Rights).”
The Home Office has said £169,000 could be spent on every asylum seeker forcibly removed to a third country such as Rwanda. The UK government has not ruled out future deals with other countries who may agree to take on new arrivals.
Last year, 45,755 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats and a further 25,000 are believed to have made the journey this year. It has become a key battleground in the looming general election, and the PM has made stopping the boats is one of the five key pledges.
“I’m confident that once flights start going regularly to Rwanda, the boats will stop coming”, he told last week’s Conservative Party conference.
In the middle of the Supreme Court battle are asylum seekers from countries including Syria, Iran and Iraq who were originally slated for deportation to Rwanda in June last year, on a flight that was grounded at the last minute thanks to a legal challenge.
One travelled across Europe after fleeing a Syrian rebel group, spending seven months in Dunkirk before crossing the Channel in an inflatable boat. He says he did not claim asylum in France as he was scared of reprisals from the rebel group’s supporters.
Another from Iraq says he reached the UK after travelling by bus, lorries, a cargo train, van, and small boat, and he claims to be a victim of torture in his homeland.
Sir James told the court Rwanda “knows full well the UK expects compliance” with the legal obligations of the asylum process, and faces independent monitoring.
“This is not merely a situation where a serious committment has been made on the international plane”, he said. “The serious commitments will be critically and minutely scrutinised.”
His submissions have repeatedly returned to the words for the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, who gave a minority ruling in the Court of Appeal concluding the government’s Rwanda policy was lawful.
The Supreme Court is expected to reserve its judgment after this week’s hearings, with a final decision possibly not until the new year.
