Court of Appeal to reconsider ruling that Rwanda policy to deport asylum seekers is lawful

Claimants to argue assurances by Rwandan government do not ‘provide sufficient guarantee’ of safety

Asylum seekers and a charity have been granted permission to appeal the High Court’s finding that the Rwanda asylum deal is lawful.

In December, judges found that the overall policy was legal but quashed the Home Office’s decisions to deport eight people selected for transfer to Kigali.

Suella Braverman hailed the ruling as a victory, claiming it “thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership” and restating her commitment to starting flights to Kigali.

But on Monday, the same judges granted permission for the claimants to challenge their finding that the Rwanda policy was lawful as a whole.

The Court of Appeal will consider arguments including whether the plan amounts to an unlawful penalty under the Refugee Convention, if asylum seekers are given fair opportunity to resist deportation and whether commitments on their treatment made by the Rwandan government can be relied upon.

No date has been set for the appeal hearing and any ruling is expected to take several months, and may itself be appealed to the Supreme Court, further delaying the possibility of any deportation flights taking off.

Lord Justice Lewis told the High Court that some of the issues raised “concern the lawfulness of the arrangement” and have a significant impact on the individual claimants, and all other asylum seekers who may be selected for deportation.

The claimants argued that judges made a mistake in previously deciding that written assurances given by the Rwandan government “provided sufficient guarantees” to protect asylum seekers from future refoulement to countries where they would face harm, or the risk of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

The contested documents, including the memorandum of understanding signed by Priti Patel, were described in December’s ruling as “an important underpinning for a conclusion that Rwanda is a safe third country”.

Individual claimants and Asylum Aid were granted permission to appeal, while the PCS union, Detention Action and Care4Calais charities were ruled to have no legal standing to continue fighting the case.

Carolin Ott, a solicitor representing Asylum Aid, said: “We look forward to presenting our client’s case that the procedure adopted by the Home Office to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unfair and consequently unlawful.”

Judges found in their initial ruling that the home secretary was “entitled to rely on the assurances” given because of previous aid payments to Rwanda and “significant financial assistance” for the new scheme.

The claimants are also to challenge findings that being deported to the country is not an unlawful penalty under the terms of the Refugee Convention.

Lawyers representing the UN Refugee Agency previously told the High Court that the policy was a penalty because it “exposes a category of asylum seekers to less favourable asylum procedures than would otherwise be provided, based on their allegedly illicit mode of arrival”.

Government documents revealed as part of the legal battle showed that consideration of Rwanda for a “migration partnership” had started by September 2020.

Rwanda was initially “ruled out” of consideration for an asylum deal by the Foreign Office, but put back on the list of potential countries after “particular interest” was shown by Boris Johnson and Ms Patel.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Our ground-breaking migration partnership will relocate people who come to the UK through dangerous and illegal routes to Rwanda, where they will be supported to build a new life. This will disrupt the criminal people smuggling gangs who sell lies and put lives at risk.

“The court previously upheld that this policy is lawful and that it complies with the Refugee Convention, and we stand ready to defend this policy at any appeal hearings.”