Home Office made ‘false claim’ Rwanda scheme was backed by UNHCR, High Court hears
QC takes aim at ‘inaccuracies’ in government submission over legal challenge
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Home Office falsely claimed Priti Patel’s Rwanda deportation plan had been approved by the UNHCR, the refugee agency told the High Court on Friday as the policy was challenged by campaigners.
Migrants and campaign groups are seeking a judicial review into the government’s controversial policy which could see the first group of some 31 migrants deported to Africa as early as next week
The UNHCR had concerns about the asylum process in Rwanda, including discriminatory access to asylum, a lack of legal representation and interpreters, and difficulties in appealing, the court heard.
Laura Dubinsky QC, representing the UN agency, said there had been “inaccuracies” in the way the agency’s views had been described by the Home Office.
She told the court that the agency is concerned about the risk of “serious, irreparable harm” caused to refugees sent to Rwanda, adding the body “in no way endorses the UK-Rwandan arrangement”.
“UNHCR is not involved in the UK-Rwanda arrangement, despite assertions to the contrary made by the Secretary of State,” she later said.
Ms Dubinsky said the agency had “serious concerns about Rwandan capacity”, adding: “UNHCR itself is not in a position to rectify those deficiencies.”
Raza Husain QC, for the claimants, said the Rwanda asylum system is unsafe and that the deal arranged my Ms Patel was "unenforceable".
He also said a Home Office document used by the department was "replete with the suggestion that the UNHCR has given this plan a green light".
"Regrettably, the material in this application demonstrates that to be misleading," he added.
"These are concerns that have been communicated to the UK authorities and yet the secretary of state's position ... is that the UNHCR has given this plan a green light. That is a false claim."
Downing Street has said Boris Johnson is still hopeful that the first flight sending migrants to Rwanda will go ahead on Tuesday. A No 10 spokesman said: "You're aware of the ongoing court case today but we've set out our position on why we think this is the right approach."
Meanwhile, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called the plan a "chaotic diversion" and said his party instead would form "a proper plan with the French authorities" to tackle people smuggling.
In written submissions, Home Office lawyers urged the court to reject the application, arguing that it “fails at the first stage”, adding: “The claimants have not identified a serious issue to be tried, still less the strong case they allege for the grant of relief at trial.”
The papers also disclose the Home Office has already cancelled removal directions for three people who had asked the High Court to prevent their deportation to Rwanda. In the hearing, it emerged two more people will also have them cancelled.
The claim and application runs to “many hundreds of pages”, the Home Office lawyers said, as they suggested there had been delays in serving the papers, arguing: “Given the volume of material that has now been served, this delay has prejudiced the defendants’ ability to respond to the interim relief application.”
They also cited “procedural issues” over the way in which the claim has been made.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments