Rwanda appeal ruling – live: Braverman says ‘it’s not over yet’ as she doubles down on ‘unlawful’ asylum deal
Court of Appeal judges concluded that the African nation is not a safe country to receive refugees
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.Home secretary Suella Braverman has insisted “it’s not over yet” as she doubled down on her Rwanda asylum plan, after it was ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal.
The plan to forcibly deport small boat migrants to the African nation was blocked on Thursday, with judges concluding it is not a safe country to receive asylum seekers from the UK.
The Court of Appeal had granted an appeal by asylum seekers selected for deportation after the High Court ruled in December that the plan was lawful. Following Thursday’s judgement, Rishi Sunak said he “fundamentally disagreed” and would appeal to the Supreme Court.
That process will take several more months and threatens the passage of the new Illegal Migration Bill, which aims to see small boat migrants detained and deported without asylum claims being considered.
Addressing the Commons, Ms Braverman insisted “the British people will no longer indulge the polite fiction that we have a duty or infinite capacity to support everyone in the world who is fleeing persecution”, adding: “It is unfair on those who play by the rules and who want to see an asylum system that is fit for purpose.”
Court of Appeal ruling determined “on the basis of evidence”
A Court of Appeal ruling which found that Government plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda are unlawful was determined “on the basis of evidence” and the judgment did not support or oppose “any political view”, one of the appeal judges said.
In a 161-page judgment on Thursday, Sir Geoffrey Vos, supported by Lord Justice Underhill, found there were “substantial grounds” to think that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda faced “real risks” of torture or inhuman treatment, or that their claims for asylum would not be properly determined in the east African nation.
The ruling overturned the High Court’s finding that the east African nation could be considered a “safe third country” for asylum seekers.
However, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett – who heard the appeal with the other two judges in April – disagreed, saying he would dismiss the challenge.
In the judgment, Sir Geoffrey said the court needed to look at the situation in Rwanda for asylum seekers alongside the assurances given by the authorities and the agreement between the two countries, the UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP).
He described the MEDP policy as “a politically sensitive one which has attracted significant public and media attention”.
Sir Geoffrey continued: “Notwithstanding that position, the case must be determined on the basis of the evidence and of accepted and familiar principles of public law.
“Nothing in this judgment should be construed as supporting or opposing any political view of the issues.”
‘Deficiencies' in the legal rights of asylum seekers in Rwanda.
The judge noted it was accepted the UK Government has “huge experience of diplomatic relations” with the Rwandan authorities.
He also said that Home Office lawyers had argued that “in the light of the detailed guarantees and assurances in the MEDP and the longstanding relationship with Rwanda and its financial and other incentives to perform on its obligations, what happened in the past was of limited, if any, real significance”.
However, Sir Geoffrey disagreed, finding: “I do not accept that the past and the present can either be ignored or side-lined as the Home Office suggests.”
“The likelihood of promises being performed must, anyway in part, be judged by reference to what has happened in the past and the capacity and capability of the entity making the promises to keep them,” the judge added.
In his decision, Sir Geoffrey referred to evidence from the UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, who said there were several deficiencies in the legal rights of asylum seekers in Rwanda.
Court of Appeal was 'concerned with the risk’
Sir Geoffrey said the UK Government acknowledges that Rwanda is “a one-party state which reacts unfavourably to dissent”, adding: “It is not an answer to say that Rwanda will have accepted the people sent under the MEDP, because the advanced information they will have about them will be limited and they may form adverse political opinions once there.”
Lord Justice Underhill, who largely supported Sir Geoffrey’s conclusions, said the Court of Appeal was “concerned with the risk to the group as a whole to whom the asylum policy is intended to be applied”.
The judge said there was “evidence of a culture of, at best, insufficient appreciation by Directorate General of Immigration and Emigration officials of Rwanda’s obligations under the refugee convention, and at worst a deliberate disregard for those obligations”.
Lord Justice Underhill said the UNHCR had alleged that the Rwandan authorities were biased against asylum seekers from the Middle East and Afghanistan, calling the figures “statistically frail”.
He continued: “But I do not believe they can be disregarded, particularly when taken with its evidence about the views expressed by senior Government of Rwanda officials that they should have sought asylum nearer to home.”
‘No evidence of bad faith' in Rwanda
The appeal judge said there was no evidence that showed the Rwandan government has entered into the agreements “in bad faith”.
He continued: “There is no reason to suppose that it does not wish to ensure that relocated individuals have their asylum claims determined fairly and effectively.
“But aspiration and reality do not necessarily coincide.”
“I have reached the conclusion that the Rwandan system for refugee status determination was not, as at the relevant date, reliably fair and effective,” Lord Justice Underhill concluded.
However, in his dissenting judgment, Lord Burnett said the High Court had not considered whether it was “safe” for “substantial” numbers of people to be immediately sent to Rwanda.
He continued: “Similarly, the voluminous papers in this case identify hypothetical special problems it is said that some groups of people would face.
“But we are not considering whether it would be ‘safe’ for every conceivable type of person to be sent to Rwanda.”
He also said: “In much of the political hyperbole which surrounded the announcement of the Rwanda policy there was talk of Rwanda, within a few years, being a destination for thousands of asylum seekers who arrived irregularly in the United Kingdom.”
‘Only 100' asylum seekers could be housed in Rwanda
However, Lord Burnett said that the High Court was told that the physical capacity for housing asylum seekers in Rwanda was limited to 100.
The most senior judge in England and Wales later said that there would be both formal and “informal” monitoring of anyone who was deported to Rwanda.
As well as the formal monitoring described in the agreement itself and arrangements by the British High Commission, Lord Burnett continued: “With the assistance of lawyers in England, those unwilling to be removed to Rwanda would have been engaged in resisting on all available grounds.
“In referring to ‘informal’ monitoring I have in mind the reality that anyone removed to Rwanda, with their internet connected mobile phone, will be in a strong position to raise any personal concerns that they are not being treated in accordance with the agreement.”
The judge also said that while there was “certainly evidence of poor practice” in the Rwandan asylum system, “there will, no doubt, be changes in respect of those considered under the agreement with the United Kingdom”.
“But the question is whether the system as a whole can be relied upon to deliver appropriate outcomes,” he added.
Lord Burnett concluded that the people bringing the appeal “fall short” in proving there are substantial grounds to believe there is a “real risk” they would face torture or inhuman treatment in Rwanda.
Tory MPS press ministers to take urgent steps to allow plan to happen
Conservative MPs have pressed ministers to take urgent steps to allow the UK’s planned Rwanda removal scheme to proceed.
Former ministers Sir Edward Leigh and Mark Francois suggested the UK seeks a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to assist deportation efforts.
The remarks came after judges at the Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, ruled Government plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda are unlawful.
Sir Edward told the Commons: “What we’ve been suggesting for two years in the Common Sense Group is the Refugee Convention is made for a different world, as was the human rights convention, and we simply have to have a derogation so that we can detain people and then deport them, and we’ll never solve this problem otherwise.”
Home Secretary Suella Braverman replied: “He makes a powerful point. Last year we saw the operation of the Strasbourg court operate in a way that was opaque, that was irregular, which was unfair frankly when it comes to the will of the British people.”
She said the Government was legislating “to avoid that scenario repeating itself”.
‘The boats will keep coming all summer'
Mr Francois added: “It could now take months for the case to reach the Supreme Court, let alone for a judgment to be handed down. In the meantime, the boats will keep coming, now probably all summer.”
He asked if anything could be done to “expedite the Supreme Court’s decision in this case”, and added “the only way we will ultimately solve this problem is to achieve a derogation from the ECHR”.
Ms Braverman said: “The court sets the timetables and we will follow any timeline they set.”
States signed up to the ECHR may, in exceptional circumstances, have the opportunity to derogate from their obligations.
In 2022, the European Court of Human Rights granted an injunction, via rule 39, that effectively grounded a flight sending asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda – which renewed calls from some Tory MPs to pull out of the ECHR.
Ms Braverman hopes the Illegal Migration Bill will limit the impact of legal challenges.
Danny Kruger, Conservative MP for Devizes, suggested the Government might be helped in its appeal by securing a commitment from the Rwandan government that they will not return asylum seekers to places where they might be persecuted.
Ms Braverman, in her reply, said: “We will always review our arrangements and we’ll always ensure they’re in the best possible state they can be.”
‘This is fundamentally a question of democracy'
Conservative MP Lia Nici said: “I spoke with a constituent in Victoria Street, Grimsby, a few weeks ago and he said to me that ‘we will never send illegal migrants back to Rwanda because the left-wing establishment will never allow it to happen’. Is he right?”
Ms Braverman reiterated the Government had “made a promise to the British people to stop the boats”, adding: “I believe we will deliver on that promise and we will get there in the end.”
Conservative MP Aaron Bell said: “I believe this is fundamentally a question of democracy. The British people have repeatedly voted for control of immigration and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme expect us to stop the boats.”
Conservative MP Philip Hollobone (Kettering) told the Commons his constituents are “completely fed up with the courts frustrating the Rwanda plan”.
Lib Dems condemn ‘dog whistle agenda'
Opposition MPs criticised the Government’s approach, with Liberal Democrat former leader Tim Farron accusing the Home Secretary of “incompetence” and said she “seeks to distract us by playing games like this”.
The SNP’s Patrick Grady said: “The Home Secretary says that she is disappointed by the High Court’s decision, but in fact is she not being a bit coy?
“Is she not actually delighted? Is this not exactly what the Government wanted all along? A fight with the judiciary, a fight with the House of Lords, triangulating the official opposition.
“Doesn’t this play straight into their dog whistle agenda and the human rights of people fleeing war, oppression and famine are simply an afterthought?”
We’re pausing our live coverage of the Rwanda plan for the day but keep checking independent.co.uk for the latest updates.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments