Rwanda is a “safe” country and the government should be trusted over judges to decide if asylum seekers can be deported there, it has argued on the first day of a Supreme Court battle to save its flagship immigration policy.
The Home Office is bidding for a declaration from top judges that its plan to send new arrivals to the east African state is lawful.
The Rwanda plan is a cornerstone of the government’s pledge to “stop the boats”, but has been thwarted since June last year thanks to a series of legal obstacles.
Opening the government’s case at the Supreme Court, Sir James Eadie KC said on Monday that Rwanda is “a country less attractive” than the UK, “but nevertheless safe”.
He insisted the government has “institutional expertise”, including having negotiated the multimillion pound deal with Rwanda, so is “best placed to make the predictive assessment of the future conduct of Rwanda”.
“The courts are not institutionally well-equipped to make such an assessment”, he said, adding: “We are the experts of these arrangements and how we can expect Rwanda to behave in the future.”
The government signed the controversial deal in April 2022, but has been thwarted on implementation for the last 18 months. Critics say Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers to be sent, putting the UK in danger of breaking its international obligations.
The policy was adjudged to be lawful in the High Court, but lawyers for asylum seekers won a Court of Appeal challenge where two top judges declared the plan “unlawful”.
The government is hoping the Supreme Court will overturn that ruling, paving the way for flights to finally head to Rwanda. “The appeal is, at its heart, about the judgments made by Government about the future conduct of a friendly foreign state – Rwanda”, said Sir James.
He said Rwanda had given assurances that asylum seekers would be dealt with fairly - and legally - and would not be returned to their country of origin to face persecution.
There is “a serious and pressing need to take effective steps that will act as a deterrent to those undertaking the perilous and sometimes life-threatening journey, typically across the Channel, from a safe country”, said Sir James.
Referring to concerns about Rwanda’s history, including by the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR, the barrister said: “Both the Government and the Rwandan government were fully aware of the likely controversy of the arrangements that were made when the deal was signed.”
He said asylum seekers’ rights of review and appeal were “embedded” in the deal with Rwanda, which also “guaranteed” access to legal support.
In written arguments, he added that transfers to the east African nation “will take place only with the consent of the Rwandan authorities and numbers will, in the first instance, be low”.
He said the “independently monitored” deal and assurances were designed to ensure anyone sent to Rwanda “will have a safe and effective determination of their asylum claim” that is compatible with human rights conventions.
“It is the government, with its institutional expertise, access to advice and direct involvement in the negotiation and implementation of the (policy), that is best placed to make the relevant assessments”, he said.
“The Government made a predictive judgment as to whether Rwanda has not merely the intent in good faith, but also the capacity and capability to deal with the individuals and asylum claims in accordance with the assurances given.”
The UNHCR, which has intervened in the legal challenges over the policy, previously said Rwanda “lacks irreducible minimum components of an accessible, reliable, fair and efficient asylum system”.
In the agency’s written submissions to the Supreme Court, Angus McCullough KC said it had “consistently expressed grave concerns” about the safety and legality of the policy.
He continued: “UNHCR maintains its unequivocal warning against the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda under the UK-Rwanda Arrangement.”
Several asylum seekers who were set to be deported on the first planned flight to Rwanda in June 2022 – which was grounded minutes before take-off following a ruling by a judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – are opposing the appeal.
Raza Husain KC, for several of the asylum seekers in the case, described Rwanda at a previous hearing as “a highly autocratic repressive state” which “imprisons, tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”.
He said in written submissions to the Supreme Court: “The policy is an inherently difficult one to achieve lawfully.
“On the one hand, for the deterrent purpose of removal to a third country to be successful, the third country must be a sufficiently unattractive location to an asylum seeker travelling to the UK.
“On the other hand, the third country must not be unattractive because it falls short of Article 3 (the right to be free from torture) and Refugee Convention standards.”
The hearing before Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Sales is expected to end on Wednesday, with a judgment at a later date.
In the Court of Appeal ruling blocking the policy, Sir Geoffrey Vos noted the UK Government has “huge experience of diplomatic relations” with the Rwandan authorities. But he added: “I do not accept that the past and the present can either be ignored or sidelined as the Home Office suggests.”
Shortly after the decision, which was seen as a setback in his bid to “stop the boats”, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he “fundamentally” disagreed with the ruling and intended to appeal.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she remained “fully committed” to the policy and, despite the ruling, said she still had “every confidence” in the plan while stressing that Rwanda was a safe country.
Immigration featured heavily at the recent Conservative Party conference, with Mr Sunak saying he “will do whatever is necessary to stop the boats”.
