Sunak’s Rwanda plan in tatters after Supreme Court judges rule it unlawful
Holly Bancroft
Wed, November 15, 2023
Rishi Sunak's flagship plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is in tatters after the Supreme Court ruled it is unlawful.
The UK’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that flights will not be able to go ahead in a blow to the prime minister’s key pledge to cut immigration to the UK.
The unanimous ruling by judges agreed with a Court of Appeal decision in June that found that Mr Sunak’s £140m deal was unlawful because of deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system. Both courts found that sending anyone to Rwanda would be in breach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as there was a “real risk” they could be returned to their home countries to face “persecution or other inhumane treatment”.
Mr Sunak said “this was not the outcome we wanted” and said the government was now considering “next steps”.
No courts have found the plan to remove asylum seekers to a third-country unlawful in principle but have rather taken issue with the system in place in Rwanda. This could open up the possibility that the government could re-negotiate the deal with Rwanda in future or seek a similar deal with other countries.
Mr Sunak told MPs on Wednesday that he was working on a “new treaty” with Rwanda and, if this doesn’t work, he is “prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks”. Under the new treaty, the government will try to get Kigali to agree to give asylum seekers a home in their country even if their claims are rejected.
Rishi Sunak was accused by Suella Braverman of having ‘no plan B’ if the Rwanda deal was found unlawful (Getty/PA)
President of the Supreme Court Lord Reed was clear in the judgement that the refugee agency UNHCR, who gave evidence in the case, should be trusted in their assessment that Rwanda was not a safe country for asylum seekers. He also emphasised that withdrawing the UK from the ECHR would not solve the government’s problems as the UK has other legal obligations to protect the rights of refugees.
The ruling of the five judges was a resounding loss for the government, with Lord Reed telling the court: “The evidence shows that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will therefore be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.”
He said that “the changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate that risk may be delivered in the future”, but that they were not currently in place.
The Rwanda plan is a core part of the prime minister’s pledge to stop small boat crossings, although charities and ministers disagree over whether it will be a significant deterent.
It is also an important part of the Illegal Migration Bill, which would deport all small boat migrants without their asylum claims being considered.
Follow the Supreme Court ruling live
Without the Rwanda agreement, the government has nowhere to deport asylum seekers to.
The judgement has drawn criticism from the right of the Conservative party, with the Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson calling on the government to “ignore the law” and start flights anyway.
Former cabinet minister Simon Clarke said the ruling was “a serious challenge to who governs Britain”.
The Rwanda deal was originally signed by Priti Patel in April 2022 as a five-year arrangement.
Under the agreement, the UK has already paid £120m in development funding to Rwanda and £20m to receive the first group of asylum seekers, and will also pay for the processing and integration costs for each person sent there. This will cost an estimated £169,000 per person, according to a government assessment.
Rishi Sunak has said that the government will seek a ‘new treaty’ with Rwanda (PA)
Refugee charities hailed the ruling as a “victory for the rights of men, women and children who simply want to be safe”.
Care4Calais, who were a claimant in the initial legal challenge against the plan, said that the ruling was “a victory for humanity”. “Today’s judgement should bring this shameful mark on the UK’s history to a close,” CEO Steve Smith said.
One of the asylum seekers that the government tried to send to Rwanda in June 2022 has told The Independent that he “was so happy” at the news that their deportation plans had failed.
He called on Mr Sunak’s government to process his asylum claim and those of other migrants who he said are “living in limbo” waiting on their decisions.
He was in the Supreme Court, along with charity Care4Calais, when the decision was announced and he said he could tell by the body language of those around him that his claim against the government had succeeded. He said he was “proud” to be part of the legal action against the government and “it was my duty to do it for all the other people”.
The ruling comes just days after Mr Sunak sensationally sacked his home secretarySuella Braverman and replaced her with James Cleverly, the former foreign secretary.
In a scathing letter published on Tuesday night ahead of the court decision, Ms Braverman accused Mr Sunak of betraying his promise to the nation to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats. She said that Mr Sunak had agreed a deal with her when she was appointed home secretary that would have allowed specific “notwithstanding clauses” into new legislation enabling the government to exclude international law. This would in effect be a way of ignoring the ECHR on certain issues without fully withdrawing from it.
She accused Mr Sunak of rejecting this proposal and failing to prepare a plan B if the government didn’t succeed in the courts. Reacting to Wednesday’s ruling, Ms Braverman said “the government must introduce emergency legislation” or “admit defeat”.
At Mr Sunak’s new-look cabinet on Tuesday, new home secretary Mr Cleverly outlined the options available to the government in light of the Supreme Court ruling. The prime minister’s official spokesman said that leaving the ECHR was not discussed at the meeting.
Mr Cleverly has in the past said that he did not think leaving the ECHR was necessary to ensure the UK’s tough approach to immigration. He told MPs on Wednesday that: “National governments can’t just vote themselves out of international commitments”.
The Supreme Court has issued a damning judgment in its ruling that the Rwanda asylum policy is unlawful, leaving Rishi Sunak’s flagship plan in tatters.
Here are the five most damning statements in the Rwanda Supreme Court decision.
‘Real risk’ asylum seekers sent back to face ‘ill-treatment’
In their written judgment, the justices found there would be a risk of genuine asylum seekers being returned by Rwanda to the home country from where they fled, facing ill-treatment.
Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones said the court is unanimously of the view that “the evidence establishes substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.
“In that event, genuine refugees will face a real risk of ill-treatment in circumstances where they should not have been returned at all.”
Lord Reed added in a summary of the Supreme Court’s ruling that changes needed in Rwanda’s asylum system to “eliminate the risk” of refugees being returned to their countries of origin where they could face bad treatment “have not been shown to be in place now”.
He said there was a legal rule that “refugees must not be returned to their countries of origin, either directly or indirectly, if their life or freedom would be threatened in that country”.
“That rule is called the principle of non-refoulement,” he said.
Rwanda ‘rejects 100%’ of those fleeing some conflict zones
In their judgment, the Supreme Court also warned that Rwanda has a 100 per cent rejection rate for asylum seekers from conflict zones, including Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen.
The UN Refugee Agency said Rwanda had a “100 per cent rate of rejection of asylum claims from countries in known conflict zones from which asylum seekers removed from the UK may well come, such as Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, although the UK authorities often find that such claims are well-founded”, Lord Reed said.
The judge said the UNHCR gave “over 100 examples” of Rwanda sending refugees back to their countries of origin and had argued that the Rwandan government had an “apparent misunderstanding of its obligations under the Refugee Convention”.
Lord Reed added that the UNHCR has given evidence over Rwanda’s “failure” to fulfil a “similar” agreement with Israel over the removal of asylum seekers, with some people being “routinely moved clandestinely to a neighbouring country from which they were liable to be returned to where they came from and face bad treatment.”
Police warn Rwandans in UK about state plans to kill them
In their decision, the justices explained that British police have had to warn Rwandan nationals living in Britain of credible plans to kill them by the Rwandan state.
It read: “In 2017, in proceedings to which the Secretary of State was party, the Divisional Court found that Rwanda was ‘a state which, in very recent times, has instigated political killings, and has led British police to warn Rwandan nationals living in Britain of credible plans to kill them on the part of that state’.”
The justices added that Rwanda has a “poor human rights record”, noting the UK government’s own criticism of the country in 2021 for “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture”. UK government officials have also “raised concerns about constraints on media and political freedom”, said the Supreme Court.
UNHCR’s evidence ‘naturally of greatest weight’
In the 56-page judgment, the Supreme Court made clear that they accepted the weight of the evidence provided by the refugee agency UNHCR, criticising the divisional courts for failing “to give proper consideration to the UNHCR’s evidence”, which was crucial to proving that the Rwandan asylum system was not fit to process claims.
What weight to put on the UNHCR evidence has been an issue of contention in the courts, with one of the judges in the Court of Appeal ruling that the government’s assessment trumped concerns expressed by the refugee agency. The Supreme Court has instead agreed with the UNHCR in their assessment that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers.
The justices said: “UNHCR’s evidence will naturally be of greatest weight when it relates to matters within its particular remit or where it has special expertise in the subject matter.”
‘Refugees protected by other treaties’ if UK removed from ECHR
President of the Supreme Court Lord Reed used his judgment to make clear that even if the UK decided to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), this would not automatically make the Rwanda deal legal.
Lord Reed emphasised the UK has signed up to other legislation that protects the rights of refugees beyond the ECHR. He said: “Asylum seekers are protected against refoulement by several international treaties ratified by the UK.”
These included the the United Nations (UN) Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, he said.
UK plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda blocked by Supreme Court
Rob Picheta, CNN
Wed, November 15, 2023
Britain’s controversial plan to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court Wednesday, dealing a potentially fatal blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s flagship policy on migration and setting up an anticipated revolt from the right wing of his Conservative party.
The UK’s highest court ruled unanimously against the government, siding instead with a previous appeals court ruling that found the policy – which has been roundly condemned by humanitarian bodies – was not lawful.
Its ruling – which unambiguously dismantled the government’s appeal – scuppers an effort to fly asylum-seekers who arrive in the UK illegally to the east African nation. The plan was first announced in April 2022, but has been wrought with legal challenges and has failed to deport a single person.
The ruling is expected to lead to calls from the right of the Conservative Party to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a prospect that has loomed over the government for months and has caused deep rifts between left and right in Britain’s ruling party.
Judges found that Rwanda could not be considered a safe country to which to send asylum seekers, as the government has argued, because there was a risk that genuine refugees would be returned to the countries they had fled from.
Protesters waited outside the Supreme Court ahead of Wednesday's ruling. - Leon Neal/Getty Images
“There are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement to their country of origin if they were removed to Rwanda,” they wrote in their judgment.
They found that Rwanda’s system for processing asylum claims, its poor human rights record, and its previous failure to comply with non-refoulement agreements meant that the UK government could not be sure asylum seekers would have their claims considered safely and properly.
Sunak told lawmakers on Wednesday he would finalize a new deal with Rwanda that was already being worked on, adding that “if necessary I’m prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks.” Any fresh agreement with Rwanda, however, would be subject to further legal scrutiny.
He admitted earlier that the ruling “was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats.”
More immediately, Sunak must work to navigate the battle within the Conservative Party that has been brewing for months and is expected to erupt following Wednesday’s ruling.
The Supreme Court made clear that the ECHR is not the only convention against which it considered the policy, stating that other international treaties and UK legislation protect refugees and asylum seekers from being deported without guarantees over their safety.
But many on the right of his party have nonetheless been plotting a push to leave the ECHR if the court blocked the policy, a dramatic international withdrawal that moderates have strongly opposed.
The verdict was closely watched in London and across the world, with Britain’s plan considered a test of the viability of offshoring asylum processing.
It was celebrated by humanitarian groups that had long opposed the plan; Care4Calais, which supports refugees in the UK and France, said the judgment “should bring this shameful mark on the UK’s history to a close.”
And Medecins Sans Frontiers said the ruling was an “encouraging result.”
“The new Home Secretary now has a chance to abandon this pointlessly cruel approach, and focus instead on providing safe routes for those seeking sanctuary in the UK. This is the only realistic and humane way of reducing the numbers risking their lives in the Channel.”
A costly failure
Wednesday’s ruling was categorical in crushing the government’s policy on multiple fronts. But its impact will be felt for some time; the judgment reignites a debate about illegal migration as a British general election nears, as well as setting the stage for a bitter round of Conservative infighting.
The Rwanda plan was unveiled in response to a soaring number of perilous small boat crossings made by asylum seekers across the English Channel. The rate of crossings has risen rapidly in recent years, a trend Sunak has pledged to reverse.
Under the policy, some asylum seekers would be sent to Rwanda for their asylum claims to be processed. Successful claimants would then be allowed to remain in Rwanda, while those who were unsuccessful would be sent back to their countries of origin.
The Manston holding centre for migrants. Small boat crossings to the UK has soared in recent years, a trend that Sunak has pledged to reverse. - Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images
The court found that concerns about the Rwandan asylum processing system, and its human rights record, were serious enough to rule the policy illegal.
The scheme was unveiled by former Home Secretary Priti Patel and backed by her successor, Suella Braverman, who was fired from the post on Monday after a string of controversies.
But it has been a costly and public failure for three successive prime ministers. The UK has paid the Rwandan government £140 million ($177 million) for the proposal, the BBC reported.
No flights have taken place; the first scheduled flight to Rwanda was stopped at the 11th hour last year, following an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights, and months of legal challenges then stalled the program.
In a scathing letter to Sunak on Tuesday after her sacking, Braverman said the prime minister’s “magical thinking – believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion – has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B’” on illegal migration.
Braverman called Sunak “uncertain, weak, and lacking in the qualities of leadership that this country needs,” and criticized him for being unwilling to leave the ECHR to push the Rwanda plan through – drawing clear battle lines with the prime minister ahead of what could become a civil war within the party.
Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover where the vast majority of small boat crossings to England end their journey, said on Wednesday that the ruling “means the policy is effectively at an end. No planes will be leaving and we now need to move forward.”
But those on the right of the party have been preparing for some time for Wednesday’s result, and quickly began offering stark ultimatums towards the government. The number of undocumented people entering Europe, and then making their way to Britain, has spiraled this year due to conflict, global inequality and climate change, exacerbating a migrant crisis across the continent.
After Wednesday’s ruling, Conservative Party Deputy Chairman Lee Anderson said Britain should “ignore the laws” and “just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda,” PA Media reported.
Opposing illegal migration has become a key pillar of the beleaguered Conservative Party’s pitch to voters, amid polls indicating it has lost support of the public and is heading towards a general election defeat next year.
Its key figures, including Sunak and Braverman, have been accused of using inflammatory language towards illegal migrants as part of a push for votes.
“(Sunak) was told over and over again that this would happen: that it wouldn’t work, and it was just the latest Tory gimmick,” opposition leader Keir Starmer said in the House of Commons on Wednesday. “But he bet everything on it, and now he’s totally exposed.”
“Whether he likes it or not, he’ll have to go back to his office, back to the drawing board, and start from scratch,” Starmer said.
British Supreme Court rules plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda illegal
Paul Godfrey
Wed, November 15, 2023
Demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court in London Wednesday to protest the government's Rwanda asylum policy as judges inside upheld a ruling by a lower court that the scheme was unlawful.
Photo by Neil Hall/EPA-EFE
Nov. 15 (UPI) -- Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal by the government to overturn a ruling that its controversial plans to deport asylum seekers who arrive in the country without permission to Rwanda were illegal.
The judges concurred 5-0 to uphold a decision by the Court of Appeal in June that the policy was unlawful due to a "real risk" of refugees having their claims in the east African nation wrongly denied, or being sent back to the country they were fleeing in the first place to face persecution or other abuses.
Under the plan, people were supposed to be able to claim asylum in Rwanda, return home, or seek asylum in a third country other than Britain, but the justices said Rwanda was still deporting asylum seekers to countries they had fled even after signing the asylum partnership treaty with Britain in April 2022.
Reading out the judgment, Supreme Court president Lord Reed cited evidence from the U.N. Refugee Agency detailing a similar failed agreement between Israel and Rwanda.
The decision throws into disarray a migration strategy, the heart of which was the government's $175 million agreement with Rwanda aimed at deterring the tens of thousands of people crossing the Channel in small boats each year.
"Stopping the boats" was one of five key pledges for a more secure and prosperous Britain set by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in January after taking over from Liz Truss in October 2022.
Speaking in the House of Commons after Wednesday's ruling, Sunak said the government would seek a new agreement with Rwanda but that, if necessary, he would be prepared to change laws that allow legal challenges brought under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
He said his government would put new plans before parliament "in the coming days" and that the wording of the revised agreement would provide the "reassurance" required.
Conservative Party deputy chairman Lee Anderson said the government should "ignore the laws" and deport asylum seekers immediately upon arrival in Britain.
"Just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda. I think the British people have been very patient, I've been very patient, and now they're demanding action. And this has sort of forced our hand a little bit now.
"It's time for the government to show real leadership and send them back, same day."
The leader of the Labor Party opposition Keir Starmer called the government's policy a "ridiculous, pathetic spectacle."
"Rishi Sunak wasted $175 million of taxpayers' money on his unlawful Rwanda scheme. Only Labor has a proper plan to go after criminal smuggling gangs and clear the Tory asylum backlog."
Charities called for the scheme to be scrapped completely.
Nov. 15 (UPI) -- Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal by the government to overturn a ruling that its controversial plans to deport asylum seekers who arrive in the country without permission to Rwanda were illegal.
The judges concurred 5-0 to uphold a decision by the Court of Appeal in June that the policy was unlawful due to a "real risk" of refugees having their claims in the east African nation wrongly denied, or being sent back to the country they were fleeing in the first place to face persecution or other abuses.
Under the plan, people were supposed to be able to claim asylum in Rwanda, return home, or seek asylum in a third country other than Britain, but the justices said Rwanda was still deporting asylum seekers to countries they had fled even after signing the asylum partnership treaty with Britain in April 2022.
Reading out the judgment, Supreme Court president Lord Reed cited evidence from the U.N. Refugee Agency detailing a similar failed agreement between Israel and Rwanda.
The decision throws into disarray a migration strategy, the heart of which was the government's $175 million agreement with Rwanda aimed at deterring the tens of thousands of people crossing the Channel in small boats each year.
"Stopping the boats" was one of five key pledges for a more secure and prosperous Britain set by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in January after taking over from Liz Truss in October 2022.
Speaking in the House of Commons after Wednesday's ruling, Sunak said the government would seek a new agreement with Rwanda but that, if necessary, he would be prepared to change laws that allow legal challenges brought under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
He said his government would put new plans before parliament "in the coming days" and that the wording of the revised agreement would provide the "reassurance" required.
Conservative Party deputy chairman Lee Anderson said the government should "ignore the laws" and deport asylum seekers immediately upon arrival in Britain.
"Just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda. I think the British people have been very patient, I've been very patient, and now they're demanding action. And this has sort of forced our hand a little bit now.
"It's time for the government to show real leadership and send them back, same day."
The leader of the Labor Party opposition Keir Starmer called the government's policy a "ridiculous, pathetic spectacle."
"Rishi Sunak wasted $175 million of taxpayers' money on his unlawful Rwanda scheme. Only Labor has a proper plan to go after criminal smuggling gangs and clear the Tory asylum backlog."
Charities called for the scheme to be scrapped completely.
UK's Sunak suffers major blow as Rwanda migrant scheme declared unlawful
Michael Holden and Sam Tobin
Updated Wed, November 15, 2023
By Michael Holden and Sam Tobin
LONDON (Reuters) -Britain's Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the government's scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, dealing a crushing blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak before an election expected next year.
With his flagship immigration policy in tatters, Sunak said he was working on a new treaty with Rwanda, and said if this did not solve the issue, he would pass new laws and revisit any international treaties which frustrated his plans.
Under the scheme, Britain intended to send tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived on its shores without permission to the East African country in a bid to deter migrants crossing the Channel from Europe in small boats.
But the top court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country, delighting opponents who said the policy was unworkable and cruel, and infuriating those on the right wing of Sunak's Conservative Party.
Sunak, whose party is trailing by some 20 points in opinion polls, signalled to those angry lawmakers that Britain could potentially leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other such treaties as some have demanded.
"If it becomes clear that our domestic legal frameworks or international conventions are still frustrating plans at that point, I am prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships," Sunak told parliament.
"The British people expect us to do whatever it takes to stop the boats."
The Rwanda scheme has been the central plank of Sunak's immigration policy as he prepares to face an election next year, amid rising concern among some voters about the numbers of asylum seekers from Europe.
The ruling had taken on even greater political significance after Sunak on Monday sacked Interior Minister Suella Braverman, a popular figure on his party's right whose remit included dealing with immigration.
She launched a scathing attack on Sunak on Tuesday, saying he had broken promises on tackling immigration and betrayed the British people.
'BROKEN PROMISES'
After becoming prime minister in October last year, Sunak vowed to "stop the boats", one of the five key pledges of his premiership.
This year more than 27,000 people have arrived on the southern English coast without permission, after a record 45,755 were detected in 2022. Meanwhile the cost of housing the 175,000 migrants waiting an asylum decision is costing 8 million pounds ($10 million) a day.
The Rwanda policy was originally drawn up by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in an initial 140 million pound ($180 million) deal.
Critics, ranging from opposition lawmakers as well as some Conservatives to church leaders and the United Nations refugee agency, had argued the policy was flawed, a waste of money, immoral and simply would not work.
"He was told over and over again that this would happen, that it wouldn't work, and it was just the latest Tory (Conservative) gimmick," Keir Starmer, leader of the main opposition Labour party, told parliament.
"But he bet everything on it. And now he's totally exposed. The central pillar of his government has crumbled beneath it."
Supreme Court President Robert Reed said the five judges involved agreed there were "substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement", meaning being sent back to their country of origin where they could be at risk of ill-treatment.
This would be in breach of a number of international treaties, including the ECHR, Reed said. But he left open the chance the scheme could be resurrected, saying "the changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be delivered in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place now".
"This has forced our hand a little bit now: we should just put the planes in the air now and force them to go to Rwanda," Lee Anderson, the Conservative's Deputy Party Chairman, was quoted by British media as saying.
"The government should ignore the law and send them back now. These people are intruders and should be sent back."
The ruling will also be examined closely across Europe, where Germany and other governments are looking how to reduce the number of asylum seekers, and the European Union is seeking to overhaul the bloc's migration rules.
($1 = 0.8024 pounds)
(Additioanl reporting by William James, Elizabeth Piper, Andrew MacAskill and Alistair Smout; Editing by Alex Richardson, Kate Holton, William Maclean)
Updated Wed, November 15, 2023
By Michael Holden and Sam Tobin
LONDON (Reuters) -Britain's Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the government's scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, dealing a crushing blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak before an election expected next year.
With his flagship immigration policy in tatters, Sunak said he was working on a new treaty with Rwanda, and said if this did not solve the issue, he would pass new laws and revisit any international treaties which frustrated his plans.
Under the scheme, Britain intended to send tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived on its shores without permission to the East African country in a bid to deter migrants crossing the Channel from Europe in small boats.
But the top court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country, delighting opponents who said the policy was unworkable and cruel, and infuriating those on the right wing of Sunak's Conservative Party.
Sunak, whose party is trailing by some 20 points in opinion polls, signalled to those angry lawmakers that Britain could potentially leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other such treaties as some have demanded.
"If it becomes clear that our domestic legal frameworks or international conventions are still frustrating plans at that point, I am prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships," Sunak told parliament.
"The British people expect us to do whatever it takes to stop the boats."
The Rwanda scheme has been the central plank of Sunak's immigration policy as he prepares to face an election next year, amid rising concern among some voters about the numbers of asylum seekers from Europe.
The ruling had taken on even greater political significance after Sunak on Monday sacked Interior Minister Suella Braverman, a popular figure on his party's right whose remit included dealing with immigration.
She launched a scathing attack on Sunak on Tuesday, saying he had broken promises on tackling immigration and betrayed the British people.
'BROKEN PROMISES'
After becoming prime minister in October last year, Sunak vowed to "stop the boats", one of the five key pledges of his premiership.
This year more than 27,000 people have arrived on the southern English coast without permission, after a record 45,755 were detected in 2022. Meanwhile the cost of housing the 175,000 migrants waiting an asylum decision is costing 8 million pounds ($10 million) a day.
The Rwanda policy was originally drawn up by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in an initial 140 million pound ($180 million) deal.
Critics, ranging from opposition lawmakers as well as some Conservatives to church leaders and the United Nations refugee agency, had argued the policy was flawed, a waste of money, immoral and simply would not work.
"He was told over and over again that this would happen, that it wouldn't work, and it was just the latest Tory (Conservative) gimmick," Keir Starmer, leader of the main opposition Labour party, told parliament.
"But he bet everything on it. And now he's totally exposed. The central pillar of his government has crumbled beneath it."
Supreme Court President Robert Reed said the five judges involved agreed there were "substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement", meaning being sent back to their country of origin where they could be at risk of ill-treatment.
This would be in breach of a number of international treaties, including the ECHR, Reed said. But he left open the chance the scheme could be resurrected, saying "the changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be delivered in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place now".
"This has forced our hand a little bit now: we should just put the planes in the air now and force them to go to Rwanda," Lee Anderson, the Conservative's Deputy Party Chairman, was quoted by British media as saying.
"The government should ignore the law and send them back now. These people are intruders and should be sent back."
The ruling will also be examined closely across Europe, where Germany and other governments are looking how to reduce the number of asylum seekers, and the European Union is seeking to overhaul the bloc's migration rules.
($1 = 0.8024 pounds)
(Additioanl reporting by William James, Elizabeth Piper, Andrew MacAskill and Alistair Smout; Editing by Alex Richardson, Kate Holton, William Maclean)
U.K. Supreme Court rules plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful
Haley Ott
Updated Wed, November 15, 2023
London — The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the government's controversial plan to send asylum seekers who arrive on Britain's shores without prior permission to Rwanda was unlawful.
"There are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement to their country of origin if they were removed to Rwanda," the judgment published Wednesday said.
Non-refoulement is a core principle of international law under which asylum seekers are protected from being forced back to the country they fled.
The U.K. government's Rwanda plan
U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had pledged his government would stop migrants and asylum seekers from crossing over the English Channel in small boats, which they have done in record numbers in recent years. In April 2022, Britain signed a deal with Rwanda to send anyone arriving on its shores without prior permission to the East African nation to have their asylum claims processed there.
A protestor is seen outside the U.K. Supreme Court ahead of a ruling in which the court determined that the British government's policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, Nov. 15, 2023 in London, England.
/ Credit: LEON NEAL/Getty
The plan cost the U.K. government at least $175 million in payments to the Rwandan government, according to The Associated Press, and the legal challenges that culminated with the Supreme Court's Wednesday ruling meant not a single asylum seeker was ever actually flown to Rwanda.
U.K. government stands by the plan, promises new terms
"This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats," Sunak said in response to the ruling, adding later that his government was working on a new treaty with Rwanda and that he would "revisit our domestic legal frameworks" if necessary.
"Illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so," he said.
Speaking shortly after Sunak, Britain's newly appointed Home Secretary James Cleverly, the government minister in charge of law enforcement and immigration issues, said the government had for months "been working on a plan to provide the certainty that the courts demand," promising to come up with a new treaty with Rwanda that would "make it absolutely clear" to courts in both the U.K. and Europe that the policy "will be consistent with international law."
Rwanda's reaction, and "poor human rights record"
The court's judgment said that part of the reason the U.K. government policy was deemed unlawful was that Rwanda could not be counted on to treat asylum seekers sent there by the U.K. properly.
"Rwanda has a poor human rights record," the judgement said. "The evidence shows that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will therefore be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin. The changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate that risk may be delivered in the future, but they were not shown to be in place when the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy had to be considered in these proceedings."
Rwanda's government said in a statement that the decision was ultimately one for the U.K.'s judicial system, but it took "issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country for asylum seekers and refugees, in terms of refoulement," adding that the two nations "have been working together to ensure the integration of relocated asylum seekers into Rwandan society."
"Rwanda is committed to its international obligations, and we have been recognized by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees," the statement said.
Rights groups including OXFAM expressed relief at the ruling.
The British government's policy "sought to punish rather than protect those fleeing conflict and persecution," said Katy Chakrabortty, head of policy and advocacy at OXFAM.
The ruling came one day after Britain's previous Home Secretary Suella Braverman — seen as an architect of the Rwanda plan — was fired by Sunak for publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper without edits the prime minister's office had requested.
The plan cost the U.K. government at least $175 million in payments to the Rwandan government, according to The Associated Press, and the legal challenges that culminated with the Supreme Court's Wednesday ruling meant not a single asylum seeker was ever actually flown to Rwanda.
U.K. government stands by the plan, promises new terms
"This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats," Sunak said in response to the ruling, adding later that his government was working on a new treaty with Rwanda and that he would "revisit our domestic legal frameworks" if necessary.
"Illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so," he said.
Speaking shortly after Sunak, Britain's newly appointed Home Secretary James Cleverly, the government minister in charge of law enforcement and immigration issues, said the government had for months "been working on a plan to provide the certainty that the courts demand," promising to come up with a new treaty with Rwanda that would "make it absolutely clear" to courts in both the U.K. and Europe that the policy "will be consistent with international law."
Rwanda's reaction, and "poor human rights record"
The court's judgment said that part of the reason the U.K. government policy was deemed unlawful was that Rwanda could not be counted on to treat asylum seekers sent there by the U.K. properly.
"Rwanda has a poor human rights record," the judgement said. "The evidence shows that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will therefore be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin. The changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate that risk may be delivered in the future, but they were not shown to be in place when the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy had to be considered in these proceedings."
Rwanda's government said in a statement that the decision was ultimately one for the U.K.'s judicial system, but it took "issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country for asylum seekers and refugees, in terms of refoulement," adding that the two nations "have been working together to ensure the integration of relocated asylum seekers into Rwandan society."
"Rwanda is committed to its international obligations, and we have been recognized by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees," the statement said.
Rights groups including OXFAM expressed relief at the ruling.
The British government's policy "sought to punish rather than protect those fleeing conflict and persecution," said Katy Chakrabortty, head of policy and advocacy at OXFAM.
The ruling came one day after Britain's previous Home Secretary Suella Braverman — seen as an architect of the Rwanda plan — was fired by Sunak for publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper without edits the prime minister's office had requested.
Government spent more on 'ridiculous' Rwanda scheme than on domestic abuse victims
The government’s Rwanda scheme has cost taxpayers £140 million.
Andy Wells
·Freelance Writer
Updated Wed, November 15, 2023
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has demanded the government apologise for wasting taxpayers’ money
Five justices at the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the government’s appeal over its policy of removing asylum seekers to the east African nation
Tory Party deputy chairman Lee Anderson said the government should “ignore the laws” and send migrants back the same day they arrive in the UK
A protester outside the Supreme Court shortly before it ruled that the government’s Rwanda policy was ‘unlawful’. (PA) (amer ghazzal)
A prominent Labour MP has hit out at the cost of the government’s Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers after it was ruled “unlawful”.
Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley said the cost to the taxpayer of the scheme – £140 million – meant the government had spent more on it than for victims of domestic abuse.
Earlier on Wednesday, five justices at the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the government’s appeal over its policy of removing asylum seekers to the east African nation if they arrive by unauthorised means.
Supreme Court president Lord Reed ruled that there would be a risk of Rwanda returning genuine asylum seekers to face “ill treatment” in the country they had fled.
Responding to the ruling, Phillips posted on X: “Just a little reminder that government have spent more money on the failed Rwanda scheme than it did on domestic abuse refuges for women and children.”
Yahoo News UK has contacted Phillips for further comment.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer demanded an apology to the nation from prime minister Rishi Sunak for wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash on the “ridiculous, pathetic spectacle”.
Sunak vowed to do “whatever it takes” to end Channel crossings, as he set out how the first step will be to “finalise” a new treaty with Rwanda.
The UK's asylum system costs £3 billion a year, with around £8 million spent every day on hotel accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers.
The government’s Illegal Migration Bill estimated included an economic-impact assessment that said removing one person to a third country – like Rwanda – would cost around £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.
Rishi Sunak has vowed to do ‘whatever it takes’ to end Channel crossings. (PA) (House of Commons/UK Parliament, PA Images)
Toufique Hossain, head of public law at law firm Duncan Lewis – which represented six of the lead claimants in the Rwanda case – said the government will now have to consider the legal costs of any future asylum policies they develop.
Speaking outside court, he said: “They will have to bear in mind, whatever deal they make, the waste of taxpayers’ money, hundreds of millions of pounds, in going through a deal before it’s tested in the courts.
Labour said Wednesday’s ruling “exposes Rishi Sunak’s failure to get any grip or have any serious plan to tackle dangerous boat crossings” and that the plan “is unworkable and extortionately expensive”.
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper added: “Ministers knew about the weaknesses in this scheme from the start and yet they insisted on making it their flagship policy.”
‘Morally wrong and inhumane’
Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson said the policy was “immoral, unworkable and incredibly costly for taxpayers”.
He added: “So much time and money has already been wasted.”
The SNP's home affairs spokesperson, Alison Thewliss, said it was “right” that the policy was branded unlawful, adding: “The policy should never have been put on the table. It is morally wrong and inhumane.”
Tim Naor Hilton, the chief executive of Refugee Action, described the Rwanda policy as a “grubby cash-for-humans deportation deal, adding to Yahoo News UK: “It’s now time to scrap this inhumane and unworkable deal and any similar plans it has with other countries – and consign to history the awful and totally unworkable Illegal Migration Act that supports them.“
Lord Reed, president of the Supreme Court, delivered the verdict on the Rwanda scheme on Wednesday, (PA) (PA Video, PA Images)
In a statement to Yahoo News UK, Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said refugees “have been highly distressed, anxious, and traumatised about the prospect of being shipped as though they are human cargo to Rwanda”.
He added: “The plan goes against who we are as a country that stands up for those less fortunate than us and for the values of compassion, fairness and humanity.“
The government loss means the prime minister faces pressure from critics in the right of the Tory party, who insist the Rwanda plan is the right policy.
Jonathan Gullis, part of the New Conservatives grouping of Tory MPs, suggested the government could introduce a “notwithstanding Bill” to override all conventions and treaties the UK is part of or measures to physically push small boats back into French waters in the Channel.
Tory Party deputy chairman Lee Anderson said the government should “ignore the laws” and send migrants back the same day they arrive in the UK.
He described the Supreme Court judgement as a “dark day for the British people” and said ministers should “just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda”.
Recommended reading
Ministers urged to abandon Rwanda policy and Illegal Migration Act (PA Media)
Rwanda: Supreme Court has ruled on the government's plan – everything you need to know (Sky News)
'Victory for humanity': Rwanda plan block welcomed by human rights campaigners (The National)
Moment Supreme Court ruling on government’s Rwanda asylum policy passed down (The Independent)
Ministers urged to abandon Rwanda policy and Illegal Migration Act (PA Media)
Rwanda: Supreme Court has ruled on the government's plan – everything you need to know (Sky News)
'Victory for humanity': Rwanda plan block welcomed by human rights campaigners (The National)
Moment Supreme Court ruling on government’s Rwanda asylum policy passed down (The Independent)
UK govt doubles down on Rwanda migrant policy despite court defeat
AFP
Wed, November 15, 2023
The UK government vowed Wednesday to persevere with a controversial plan to send migrants to Rwanda, despite the Supreme Court upholding a lower court ruling that it was unlawful and should not go ahead.
In a major setback for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a five-judge panel at the UK's highest court unanimously sided with an earlier Court of Appeal decision that the policy was incompatible with Britain's international obligations.
In a 56-page ruling, the judges agreed there were "substantial grounds" to believe Rwanda could forcibly return asylum seekers and refugees to a country where they could face persecution.
But within hours of the long-awaited judgment, Sunak and his ministers said the government would press ahead with finalising a "new treaty" with Rwanda to address those concerns.
"We anticipated this judgment... and for the last few months have been working on a plan to provide the certainty that the courts demand," newly appointed interior minister James Cleverly told MPs.
The new treaty will "make it absolutely clear" to British and European courts that the Rwanda policy "will be consistent with international law", he added.
In a call shortly after the ruling, Sunak and Rwandan President Paul Kagame "reiterated their firm commitment to making our migration partnership work", Downing Street said.
"Both leaders... agreed to take the necessary steps to ensure this is a robust and lawful policy and to stop the boats as soon as possible," Sunak's office added.
- 'Appetite' -
The Migration and Economic Development Partnership agreed in April last year envisages sending to Rwanda anyone who has made what London calls "dangerous or illegal journeys" to Britain on boats and hidden in lorries.
The first deportees were aboard a plane to fly to the African country in June 2022 when a last-minute European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) injunction prevented any deportations, prompting the legal challenges.
The government insists the scheme is crucial to deter "illegal" immigration across the Channel from France on inflatable vessels -- an emotive issue set to feature prominently in the next general election.
More than 27,000 have made the perilous journey this year -- down on the nearly 46,000 who crossed in 2022, but still far short of meeting Sunak's vow to "stop the boats".
His administration says both regular and irregular immigration must be slashed to ease pressure on government-funded services, such as health and housing asylum seekers.
Britain's asylum backlog stands at 122,585, after falling 12 percent from a record high in February.
Sunak's government passed legislation in July barring any "illegal" arrivals from claiming asylum, but it relies on finding third countries to send them to.
Opponents criticise the choice of Rwanda, while arguing the policy is overly cruel, costly and difficult to implement.
The government in Kigali said Wednesday it "take(s) issue" with the ruling that it is not a safe third country.
Despite the pledge to push ahead with its Rwanda plan, there is growing speculation London will now try to strike deals with other countries.
Cleverly claimed there was "an appetite for this concept", and said several other European countries were exploring similar agreements.
- 'Ignore the laws' -
The Supreme Court decision could widen rifts in the ruling Conservative party and prompt renewed demands from right-wingers that Britain withdraw from the ECHR.
Former interior minister Suella Braverman launched a scathing attack on Sunak on Tuesday, a day after he sacked her, accusing him of "betrayal" over immigration and saying he had "no appetite for doing what is necessary".
In parliament on Wednesday, Sunak told MPs he was "prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships" if "domestic legal frameworks or international conventions" frustrated the plans.
Outspoken Tory party deputy chairman Lee Anderson said ministers should "ignore the laws" and deport migrants the day they arrive.
He branded the court judgment a "dark day for the British people" and said the government should "just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda".
The main Labour opposition, riding high in the polls, accused Sunak of failing to "have any serious plan to tackle dangerous boat crossings".
"Labour argued from the start this plan is unworkable and extortionately expensive," said home affairs spokeswoman Yvette Cooper.
Migrant advocates, including the UN refugee agency UNHCR which advised the Supreme Court on international refugee law and protection standards, welcomed Wednesday's court ruling.
Amnesty International's UK chief executive Sacha Deshmukh urged ministers to "now draw a line under a disgraceful chapter in the UK's political history".
BBC
Wed, November 15, 2023
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman was a strong supporter of the Rwanda scheme.
The UK government wanted to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, but the policy has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.
The Court said there was a risk that any asylum seeker sent there could be returned to their home country, which would breach UK and international human rights laws.
LIVE: Rwanda asylum plan unlawful, UK Supreme Court rules
What was the Rwanda asylum plan?
The five-year trial - announced in April 2022 - would have seen some asylum seekers sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Under the plan, they might have been granted refugee status to stay in Rwanda. If not, they could have applied to settle there on other grounds, or sought asylum in another "safe third country".
No asylum seeker has actually been sent to Rwanda. The first flight was scheduled to go in June 2022, but was cancelled after legal challenges.
The government said the policy would deter people arriving in the UK through "illegal, dangerous or unnecessary methods", such as on small boats which cross the English Channel.
More than 45,700 people used this route to come to the UK in 2022, the highest figure since records began.
Chart showing the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats, 2018-2023 (15 November 2023)
As of 13 November, the number of small boat crossings in 2023 was a third lower than at the same point the year before, however it is not possible to say if the drop is the result of government migration policies.
In October, shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock said the weather had been partly responsible for the fall in numbers, claiming that 2023 was "the wettest summer since 1912".
How many people cross the Channel in small boats?
How is the UK stopping Channel crossings?
What did the Supreme Court say about the Rwanda policy?
The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Rwanda scheme is unlawful.
In their ruling, the five top justices said the Court of Appeal had been right to conclude in June that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was a safe country for asylum seekers.
Lord Reed, the Court president, said there was strong evidence to believe that genuine refugees sent to the country could be at risk of being returned to their home countries - where they could face persecution.
This breaches part of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment. The UK is a signatory to the ECHR.
The Supreme Court judges also cited Rwanda's poor human rights record, and its past treatment of refugees as a factor in its decision.
In response, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he remains "completely committed to stopping the boats".
He told MPs in the House of Commons that the government was in talks with Rwanda about a new treaty, and was "prepared to change our laws" if necessary.
The Rwandan government said it "takes issue" with the ruling that it is not a safe third country for asylum seekers.
"We take our humanitarian responsibilities seriously, and will continue to live up to them," it added.
Chris Mason: Rwanda migrants policy in tatters
How many people could have been sent to Rwanda?
It was not clear how many asylum seekers could have been sent to Rwanda.
The government previously said "anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January 2022 could be sent, with no limit on numbers.
Under the deal, Rwanda could also have asked the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees.
Map showing Rwanda
How much would the plan have cost?
The UK has already paid the Rwandan government £140m, but did not set out an overall cost for the scheme.
An economic-impact assessment prepared for the government's Illegal Migration Bill estimated that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.
That figure is the difference between the total cost of removing an individual - estimated to be £169,000 - and the £106,000 spent on housing support if they remain in the UK.
The £169,000 total includes a payment to the third country of around £105,000 per person, as well as £22,000 for flights.
Legal challenges meant the first Rwanda flight was cancelled shortly before take-off in June 2022
The Home Office said no cost would be incurred if the policy deterred an individual from entering the UK illegally.
But it said acknowledged it was "uncertain" how many people would be deterred because the policy was "novel and untested".
The UK's asylum system costs £3bn a year. About £8m a day is spent on hotel accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers.
Critics say the daily cost is so high because of the time taken to decide on applications, and a ban on asylum seekers working while waiting for confirmation of their status.
New Rwanda treaty on deportations in the works if judges rule against Government
Charles Hymas
Tue, November 14, 2023
Rwanda deportation policy
A new Rwanda treaty to pave the way for deportations of asylum seekers from the UK is set to be drawn up if the Supreme Court rules on Wednesday that the scheme is unlawful.
Ministers are expected to order a rewrite of the agreement with Rwanda if the five Supreme Court judges rule that deficiencies in the country’s asylum system make it unsafe to send asylum seekers there.
It is one of a series of contingency measures being considered if the judges uphold a Court of Appeal ruling that the policy was unlawful because of the risk asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be returned to their own country and face persecution in breach of their human rights.
Other options include excluding illegal migrants from using the Human Rights Act to avoid removal, enacting legislation to deem Rwanda a safe country and expanding the list of “safe” countries. Rishi Sunak will also face calls by up to 60 Tory backbench MPs for the UK to quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
But James Cleverly, the new Home Secretary, is expected to argue the Government’s “stop the boats” measures are already working, with a third fewer Channel crossings so far this year owing to fast-track deportations deterring Albanians, increased patrols on northern French beaches and police crackdowns on people smuggling gangs.
Flights to Rwanda have been suspended since last June when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg issued a “rule 39” injunction blocking the deportation of asylum seekers until the legality of the policy was determined by the UK courts.
If the Supreme Court backs the Rwanda policy, ministers plan for the first flights to Rwanda in the New Year. They have taken heart from moves by Strasbourg to make it harder to issue rule 39 injunctions in the event that lawyers for the asylum seekers try to block the flights again by appealing the Supreme Court decision to the ECHR.
The political stakes for Mr Sunak have been raised by the former home secretary Suella Braverman’s claims on Tuesday that his failure to back her demands for even tougher migrant laws could cost him the case, “wasting” a year and putting the Government “back at square one”.
The Supreme Court verdict is expected at around 10am on Wednesday, two hours before Mr Sunak faces Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons. This will be followed by a statement to MPs by Mr Cleverly spelling out the Government’s response to the judgement.
The Rwanda plan is central to the Prime Minister’s illegal migration act, which gives ministers powers to detain anyone who arrives in the UK illegally and deport them to a “safe” third country or their homelands.
The appeal court found by a two-to-one majority that Rwanda’s asylum system was “inadequate”, meaning there were “substantial” reasons for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be wrongly returned to their home countries to face persecution or torture - in breach of article 3 of the ECHR.
If the Supreme Court upholds that verdict, ministers are expected to put in place a new deal with Rwanda addressing the deficiencies in the country’s asylum system, with tighter criteria and guarantees that ensure it reaches the same standards as it would have done in the UK.
This could be elevated into a new Treaty, approved by Parliament, giving it a legal status that would bolster it against further legal challenges by asylum seekers.
As part of the Government’s Supreme Court case which said that the Rwanda system could already be trusted, its lawyers pointed to measures including independent monitoring, quarterly reports on the status of every deported migrant and two Home Office officials permanently based in Kigali to oversee the scheme.
Legal experts have suggested the Government should go further and put British caseworkers in Rwanda to support its asylum system.
In a letter to Mr Sunak, Mrs Braverman and Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick proposed excluding illegal immigrants from using the Human Rights Act to remain in Britain.
The Illegal Migration Act disapplied section 3 of the Act and narrowed the grounds for migrants to challenge their deportation by requiring them to show they faced a risk of serious and irreversible harm. But the two ministers proposed going further as part of plan B if the Government lost the Supreme Court case.
They proposed amending the Act with “notwithstanding” clauses that would direct British courts to ignore ECHR rulings in specific cases, such as when an illegal migrant requests to remain in the UK to preserve their right to family life. It was not clear last night if this will be fully adopted by Mr Sunak.
David Jones, a former Cabinet minister, said: “I would very much hope there would be recognition at last that there is no option but to legislate [to disapply the Act to illegal migration] and I hope that the Government would press on quickly with that.”
Downing Street has maintained that the Government can meet its pledge to stop the boats within its international obligations but will face a clamour from some 50 to 60 backbenchers to quit the ECHR if the Supreme Court rejects its case.
Responding to Mrs Braverman’s letter on Wednesday, Sir Edward Leigh said: “You cannot detain people who land on our shores if you remain in the refugee convention and the ECHR.
“Sooner or later we’re going to have to bite this bullet and leave these two conventions. This decision has got to be made very soon and I suspect this is what Suella has been pushing for for the last year.”
In an interview with the Telegraph on Monday, Mr Jenrick refused to rule out the possibility of quitting the ECHR. When asked if the UK would leave, he said: “I’ve been clear that we have to do whatever it takes.”
He said for the first time that the Government’s aim was to “stop the boats in their entirety” by the next election. But he admitted that it would not achieve this goal without the prospect of Rwanda flights to deter Channel crossings by migrants.
Mr Sunak is, however, said to be “allergic” to the idea of quitting the ECHR, amid concerns that it could damage UK trade and diplomatic relations with key partners in Europe and the US.
When Foreign Secretary, Mr Cleverly said he was “not convinced” that leaving the ECHR was necessary to ensure the immigration system was robust, and that the UK had the clout to push for changes if needed.
“European countries which are not part of the ECHR is a small club. I am not convinced it is a club we want to be part of,” he said. “That is not suggesting that the interpretation of human rights by judges is something I think has worked well.”
It is thought Mr Sunak would prefer to push for international agreement on reforming the ECHR and Refugee Convention as countries such as Germany, Italy and Austria consider Rwanda-style schemes.
Ministers are looking to expand the list of “safe” countries to which migrants who arrive in the UK illegally could be deported.
Adding nations to the “safe” country list alongside EU countries Switzerland and Albania would make it easier to reject asylum claims and return them to their homelands.
India and Georgia were added to the list last week, while ministers are now considering including Turkish, Egyptian and Iraqi Kurdish migrants.
Turkey accounted for 2,121 Channel migrants in the eight months to the end of August, while Egyptians numbered 679. Iraq accounted for 1,774 migrant Channel crossings up to the end of August, but it would be more complex to place the country on the “safe” list because of continuing sectarian violence.
Powers in the Illegal Migration Act allow ministers to ignore ECHR injunctions. Ministers obtained these powers in anticipation that they could be used again if the Government wins its Supreme Court case.
Flouting them would be seen as the “nuclear” option, which is why Mr Sunak and his ministers have been lobbying the Strasbourg court to reform its procedures. They want to avoid the repeat of the eleventh-hour injunction taken by a single unnamed judge behind closed doors that grounded the first Rwanda flights in June 2022.
On Monday, the Strasbourg court signalled a change in approach by stating that they would only be used in “exceptional circumstances” where there was “imminent risk of irreparable harm.” The judges who make the decisions will also be named for the first time.
Tim Loughton, a former minister and member of the Home Affairs Committee, said the court appeared to have been spooked by the growing numbers of European countries turning to Rwanda-style schemes and a potential threat of the UK quitting the ECHR.
“If other countries are supporting so-called ‘illegal’ Rwanda-style schemes like ours then there is pressure for proper wholescale reform of the court,” he said.
However, Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “The Government’s plans to ship people seeking safety on our shores off to Rwanda are in stark contrast to the UK’s long history of offering protection to those who need it through a fair hearing on British soil.
“The Government is showing a callous disregard to victims of trafficking, victims of horrendous torture and abuse and families who have to escape the horrors of war. It’s measures will do little to stop desperate people making dangerous journeys to the UK, and they pose serious safeguarding risks, particularly for children and families.
“Instead of outsourcing our international commitment to provide safe haven to those fleeing for their lives – including people from Afghanistan and Sudan – we should be focusing on operating an orderly, humanex, and fair asylum system, and on expanding safe routes to the UK.”
Rwanda policy ruling: What happens now the Government has lost?
Charles Hymas
Wed, November 15, 2023
Priti Patel, the former home secretary, signed an initial asylum agreement with Rwanda's minister of foreign affairs in April 2022 - Getty Images/SIMON WOHLFAHRT
The five most senior members of the UK’s Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would be unlawful for the Government to deport migrants to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Led by the president of the court, their job was to determine whether the Court of Appeal’s three judges were right to rule, by a two-to-one majority, that it was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe country for asylum seekers.
The hearing was the culmination of an 18-month legal battle and was held to decide whether the Government could implement the proposals in its Illegal Migration Act to detain and deport anyone arriving illegally in the UK to a third country such as Rwanda or their home nation.
The plan was central to Rishi Sunak’s pledge to stop the boats as ministers saw the threat of deportation to Rwanda as a significant deterrent to migrants seeking to cross the Channel to build their lives in the UK.
How did the legal battle start?
Following a sharp increase in the number of people crossing the Channel, Boris Johnson, the then-prime minister, announced a plan in April 2022 to deport migrants arriving in small boats to Rwanda for their claims to be processed. He said this would act as a “very considerable deterrent”.
The first flight was scheduled for June 15 but was blocked by a single judge at the European Court of Human Rights who backed a claim by one of the seven passengers that he risked “irreversible harm” if he was deported to Rwanda.
Behind closed doors and at the eleventh hour, the judge issued what is known as a Rule 39 interim injunction blocking the deportation of the asylum seekers until such time as the legality of the policy was determined by the UK courts.
What is the Government’s justification for deportation?
Priti Patel, the then home secretary, argued in the High Court that the asylum seekers had entered the UK illegally, and that she was therefore justified to declare their claims inadmissible.
Under immigration rules, the Home Secretary can remove such an asylum seeker to any safe third country that agrees to accept the asylum claim. She maintained her decisions were made in accordance with the agreement that Rwanda would take asylum seekers from the UK.
The two High Court judges ruled that the Rwanda policy was, in principle, lawful, but said the way in which the Home Secretary had implemented the policy in the claimants’ individual cases was procedurally flawed.
As a result, her decisions in those cases were quashed and remitted to her for reconsideration.
Priti Patel, the then home secretary, argued in the High Court that the asylum seekers had entered the UK illegally, and that she was therefore justified to declare their claims inadmissible.
Under immigration rules, the Home Secretary can remove such an asylum seeker to any safe third country that agrees to accept the asylum claim. She maintained her decisions were made in accordance with the agreement that Rwanda would take asylum seekers from the UK.
The two High Court judges ruled that the Rwanda policy was, in principle, lawful, but said the way in which the Home Secretary had implemented the policy in the claimants’ individual cases was procedurally flawed.
As a result, her decisions in those cases were quashed and remitted to her for reconsideration.
Why did the Court of Appeal rule against the Government?
The Court of Appeal only dealt with the challenges to the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy generally, rather than any individual asylum seekers’ cases.
The three judges ruled by a majority of two to one that deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda were such that there were substantial reasons to believe the policy carried a real risk of “refoulement”.
Refoulement is a legal term that describes the possibility migrants sent to Rwanda would be returned to their home countries – where they would face persecution or other inhumane treatment – when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda was not a safe third country.
This meant that unless and until the deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum processes were corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda would be unlawful and amount to a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the claimants’ other grounds of appeal. In particular, ministers took heart from the fact that it ruled that the principle of offshoring asylum claims to a third safe country was not a breach of the Refugee Convention.
What was the Supreme Court deciding?
The five judges in the Supreme Court were determining whether the High Court and the Court of Appeal applied the law correctly in coming to their decisions.
At a three-day hearing at the beginning of October, Sir James Eadie KC, the Government’s lawyer, sought to reassure that asylum seekers deported to the central African country would be safe.
He said Rwanda could be trusted to treat asylum seekers humanely as he outlined measures to ensure their safety including independent monitoring, quarterly reports on the status of every migrant deported to the country and two Home Office officials permanently based in Kigali to oversee the scheme.
Sir James indicated that the numbers would be “small” at the start to allow Rwanda to build capacity.
Lawyers for the individual asylum seekers argued that a series of aspirational assurances could not remedy the structural deficiencies as identified by the Court of Appeal which gave rise to a real risk that the migrants would suffer persecution and inhumane treatment, in breach of the ECHR.
What happens now the Government has lost?
Ministers are expected to put in place a new deal with Rwanda addressing the deficiencies in the Rwanda asylum system. It could be elevated into a new treaty, approved by Parliament, giving it a legal status that would bolster it against further legal challenges by asylum seekers.
The memorandum of understanding that Ms Patel signed with Rwanda in April 2022 was not approved by MPs before it was signed with Rwanda.
The new agreement is likely to include tighter criteria and guarantees to ensure that legitimate asylum seekers are not deported back to their home countries and extra provisions for legal oversight of migrants who wish to appeal any decision on their asylum claim in Kigali.
The new agreement would seek to address concerns raised by judges in the Court of Appeal hearing about the lack of mechanisms for migrants to lodge appeals and the absence of separation between the judiciary and the executive in Rwanda. Judges concluded that it was unclear what appeal rights asylum seekers would be granted.
There are also plans to send Home Office officials to train case workers in Rwanda to bolster their asylum system. This is designed to address concerns that were raised by the Court of Appeal judges over the lack of experience and resources of officials to process the complexity and magnitude of cases from the UK.
The five judges in the Supreme Court were determining whether the High Court and the Court of Appeal applied the law correctly in coming to their decisions.
At a three-day hearing at the beginning of October, Sir James Eadie KC, the Government’s lawyer, sought to reassure that asylum seekers deported to the central African country would be safe.
He said Rwanda could be trusted to treat asylum seekers humanely as he outlined measures to ensure their safety including independent monitoring, quarterly reports on the status of every migrant deported to the country and two Home Office officials permanently based in Kigali to oversee the scheme.
Sir James indicated that the numbers would be “small” at the start to allow Rwanda to build capacity.
Lawyers for the individual asylum seekers argued that a series of aspirational assurances could not remedy the structural deficiencies as identified by the Court of Appeal which gave rise to a real risk that the migrants would suffer persecution and inhumane treatment, in breach of the ECHR.
What happens now the Government has lost?
Ministers are expected to put in place a new deal with Rwanda addressing the deficiencies in the Rwanda asylum system. It could be elevated into a new treaty, approved by Parliament, giving it a legal status that would bolster it against further legal challenges by asylum seekers.
The memorandum of understanding that Ms Patel signed with Rwanda in April 2022 was not approved by MPs before it was signed with Rwanda.
The new agreement is likely to include tighter criteria and guarantees to ensure that legitimate asylum seekers are not deported back to their home countries and extra provisions for legal oversight of migrants who wish to appeal any decision on their asylum claim in Kigali.
The new agreement would seek to address concerns raised by judges in the Court of Appeal hearing about the lack of mechanisms for migrants to lodge appeals and the absence of separation between the judiciary and the executive in Rwanda. Judges concluded that it was unclear what appeal rights asylum seekers would be granted.
There are also plans to send Home Office officials to train case workers in Rwanda to bolster their asylum system. This is designed to address concerns that were raised by the Court of Appeal judges over the lack of experience and resources of officials to process the complexity and magnitude of cases from the UK.
Another option would be emergency legislation to exclude illegal migrants from using the Human Rights Act to remain in Britain. This was proposed in a letter to Mr Sunak by Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister.
The Illegal Migration Act disapplied Section 3 of the Act and narrowed the grounds for migrants to challenge their deportation by requiring them to show they faced a risk of serious and irreversible harm. But the two ministers proposed going further as part of a back-up plan if the Government lost the Supreme Court case.
They proposed amending the Act with “notwithstanding” clauses that would direct British courts to ignore ECHR rulings in specific cases, such as when an illegal migrant requests to remain in the UK to preserve their right to a family life.
The Government will also come under pressure from as many as 60 Tory MPs to quit the ECHR, which they claim has been exploited by lawyers for asylum seekers to prevent the deportation of illegal migrants.
This poll has been open since Nov 15 2023
Mr Sunak is said to be instinctively against withdrawing from the ECHR, not least because of the international condemnation from allies including the US and France if the UK were to do so.
James Cleverly, the new Home Secretary, declared, when he was foreign secretary, that he was “not convinced” that leaving the ECHR was necessary to ensure the immigration system was robust, and that the UK had the clout to push for changes if needed.
“European countries which are not part of the ECHR is a small club. I am not convinced it is a club we want to be part of,” he said. “That is not suggesting that the interpretation of human rights by judges is something I think has worked well.”
It is thought Mr Sunak would prefer to push for international agreement on reforming the ECHR and Refugee Convention as countries such as Germany, Italy and Austria consider Rwanda-style schemes.
UK's Sunak to consider next steps after Rwanda migrant scheme ruled unlawful
Reuters
Wed, November 15, 2023
Cabinet meeting inside 10 Downing Street in London
LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Wednesday that he would consider next steps after the UK Supreme Court ruled that his government's scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful.
"We have seen today’s judgment and will now consider next steps," Sunak said in a statement.
"This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats."
Sunak is due to hold a press conference at 1645 GMT. Interior minister James Cleverly is expected to make a statement to lawmakers this afternoon.
"Crucially, the Supreme Court ... has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the Government’s clear view from the outset," Sunak said.
"Illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so."
(Reporting by Muvija M; editing by William James)
