Britain’s first removal flight to Rwanda tonight has been hanging in the balance after a legal battle between asylum seekers and the Home Office.
130 people who arrived in the UK - mostly in small boats - had been told they’d be forced on a one-way ticket to the east African nation.
Due to a tide of legal battles the number was reduced to around seven by Tuesday lunchtime, and No10 couldn’t rule out cancelling the plane.
But Home Office sources vowed to push on with the flight - costing hundreds of thousands of pounds - even if only one person was on board.
And the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court all rebuffed bids for an injunction to block the flight as a whole.
Church of England leaders, including the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, branded it an "immoral" plan that "shames Britain".
But Boris Johnson said people who oppose the policy “effectively are abetting the work of the criminal gangs”.
So what is the policy, how will it actually work, and why are people saying it’s ineffectual? Here’s what you need to know.
What is the Rwanda deportation policy?
The UK signed a five-year deal effective from April 2022 for Rwanda to take Britain’s unwanted asylum seekers.
Anyone the Home Office deems “inadmissible” to claim asylum in the UK can be forcibly removed to Rwanda on a one-way charter flight.
They will have no option to apply for asylum in Britain - and must instead make an asylum claim in Rwanda.
The scheme focuses on people who arrived in the UK by “illegal” means, such as small boats in the Channel or refrigerated lorries.
They will be put in detention centres in the UK, before being put forced onto a flight to Rwanda with five days’ notice.
The first arrivals are set to be put in a hostel called Hope House in the capital Kigali, which has 50 twin rooms and communal toilets, while they apply for Rwandan asylum which takes three months. They will not be detained.
Is it legal?
The Home Office claims it is legal, due to new rules waved through last year.
A post-Brexit shake-up made it easier to deem people “inadmissible” to claim asylum, if they passed through a “safe third country” on the way here.
That cuts off their bid for UK refugee status at the first hurdle.
People deemed “inadmissible” can be sent back to the country they passed through on the way to Britain. But crucially, the new rules say they can also be removed to “any” other safe country “that may agree to receive them”. That is the legal basis of sending people to Rwanda.
Will it be ruled illegal?
It might.
The High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have all declined to issue an injunction that would stop the first flight on June 14.
But they have not yet heard any arguments about whether the policy itself is lawful. These are set to begin in July in the High Court.
If the policy is defeated in the courts, it could lead to a farcical situation where asylum seekers are flown to Rwanda - only to flown back weeks later.
Courts were given an "assurance" that, if the policy is later ruled unlawful, steps will be taken to bring back any migrants who were flown under it.
Who's paying for refugee flights to Rwanda and how much will they cost?
British taxpayers are paying for the policy - and it’s not cheap.
The deal itself pays an “initial” £120m to the Rwandan government but this is for things like assimilating people into Rwandan society.
It does not appear to include processing and detention while people are still in the UK, or the hundreds of thousands spent on each charter flight.
The Home Office spent £6.3m on 38 charter flights to deport or remove people from January 1 to July 28 last year - nearly £167,000 per flight.
But the cost of Rwanda removal flights will be higher than this, because the vast majority of those flights were only to eastern Europe.
That bill also excluded the cost of “escorts”, to ensure people being forced to leave the UK do not escape or harm themselves or others.
The Home Office insists the asylum system costs £1.5bn a year by comparison, including £5m on hotel costs per day.
A Home Office source argued: “Can people really put a price on the cost of saving human lives and securing our nation's borders?”.
How many people will be sent to Rwanda?
By the looks of things, far fewer than ministers boasted.
Boris Johnson told journalists Rwanda had “capacity” to take tens of thousands in “years ahead”.
But Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab later admitted it was “more likely to be in the hundreds” each year.
The first flight is an example of how the numbers will be whittled down due to repeated legal challenges on individuals’ behalf.
For context, 100,000 asylum seekers were waiting for an initial Home Office decision at the end of December.
Can people refuse to go to Rwanda?
No, unless they have their removal blocked in the courts.
There will be exemptions, children will not be sent and officials insist families would not be broken up.
But both men and women can be sent, as well as LGBT+ refugees, modern slavery victims, and even refugees from Rwanda itself.
The UK will not have to take people back unless it is “legally obliged” to do so (for instance, if the policy is ruled illegal).
Will Rwanda send people to the UK in return?
Yes. Under the deal, the UK will resettle "a portion of" Rwanda's most vulnerable refugees in Britain in a ‘reciprocal’ agreement.
No10 was unable to say whether that could mean more asylum seekers will end up coming from Rwanda to the UK than the other way round.
However, Home Office sources have previously said the number of people under this part of the deal would be in the tens, not the hundreds.
Can Rwanda refuse to accept people?
Yes. If for example they have a criminal record, Rwanda can refuse to have someone sent from the UK.
Rwanda can also reject an applicant’s asylum claim after they’ve already been removed from Britain and put in a Rwandan hostel.
If successful, refugees in Rwanda will be given “full rights” and “help to fully integrate”, the Home Office said.
If unsuccessful, they could apply to settle in Rwanda under a non-refugee route - but could be removed to “their country of origin or other country where they have a right to reside.” This is despite the fact many are fleeing war or persecution.
Priti Patel argued 130,000 refugees and asylum seekers are already in Rwanda, which welcomes many fleeing persecution.
Why will it ‘not work’?
The policy will only send a small proportion of people who arrive in Britain to Rwanda - so it won’t ‘solve’ the refugee crisis.
5,000 have arrived on small boats since January alone - and 100,000 were awaiting an asylum decision.
While Boris Johnson claims it will deter others, he admitted the number of small boat arrivals was “unlikely” to fall to zero soon.
Home Office sources say it’s less about the outcome of each case and more about the message it sends to people smugglers.
But critics argue the huge costs may outweigh ‘benefits’ as each case is snarled up by logistics and legal hurdles.
Azmina Siddique of the Children's Society added: “We are particularly worried about children who could be mistakenly assessed as adults."
