Judges dismiss challenge but Home Office rebuked over attempt to deport eight people in June

Rajeev Syal and Diane Taylor

The UK government’s highly controversial plan to send asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is legal, the high court has ruled.

In a judgment that could have major ramifications for Rishi Sunak’s government, judges dismissed an application from asylum seekers, aid groups and a border officials’ union to stop the Conservative government from acting on a deportation agreement with the central African country.

But in a rebuke for the Home Office, two judges said the government failed to consider the circumstances of eight individuals it tried to deport under the scheme in June.

The partial victory for the government does not mean flights will be able to take off straight away. There are expected to be further appeals, and a European court of human rights injunction in the summer prevented immediate deportations until the legal process has been exhausted.

The ruling comes after Sunak prioritised the deterrence of people from seeking asylum in the UK. More than 44,000 people have arrived in Britain by crossing the Channel in small boats and several have died, including four last week when a boat capsized in freezing weather.

It is understood that some of the applicants, who include the civil service union PCS and the charities Care4Calais and Detention Action, will appeal against the judgment.

One of the judges, Clive Lewis, said: “The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum-seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom.”

But he added that the government “must decide if there is anything about each person’s particular circumstances which means that his asylum claim should be determined in the United Kingdom or whether there are other reasons why he should not be relocated to Rwanda. The home secretary has not properly considered the circumstances of the eight individual claimants whose cases we have considered.”

Under the deportation agreement, the UK would send some people who arrive in the UK as stowaways or in boats to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. Those granted asylum would stay in Rwanda rather than returning to the UK.

Britain has paid Rwanda £140m under the deal struck in April, but no one has yet been sent there. The UK was forced to cancel the first deportation flight at the last minute in June after the European court of human rights ruled the plan carried “a real risk of irreversible harm”.

Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is determined to press on with the policy, arguing that it will deter gangs who ferry people on hazardous journeys across the Channel’s busy shipping lanes.

Braverman, who has called the Channel crossings an “invasion of our southern coast” and in September said seeing a flight take off to Rwanda bearing asylum seekers was her “dream”, told the Times at the weekend that it would be “unforgivable” if the government did not stop the journeys.

“The Brexit vote was in part about migration, control over our borders and repatriating sovereignty on the question of who comes into our country,” she said. “This is an egregious example of how we haven’t taken back control.”

Human rights groups say it is illegal, unworkable and inhumane to send people thousands of miles to a country they do not want to live in. They also cite Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and killings of government opponents.

The UK government has argued that while Rwanda was the site of a genocide that killed more than 800,000 people in 1994, it has since built a reputation for stability and economic progress. Critics say that stability comes at the cost of political repression.

The UK receives fewer asylum seekers than many European nations, including Germany, France and Italy. Some want to reach the UK because they have friends or family here, others because they speak English or because it is perceived to be easy to find work.

The government wants to deport all people who arrive by unauthorised routes, and aims to strike Rwanda-style deals with other countries. Critics say there are few authorised routes for seeking asylum in the UK, other than those set up for people from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong.

Responding to Monday’s judgment, Clare Moseley, the founder of Care4Calais, said she was discussing “next steps” with her legal team. “We will consider our position in respect of the court of appeal,” she said.

“We are relieved for the individual claimants whom the court has ruled should not be removed to Rwanda. However, there are potentially thousands more people seeking asylum in the UK who are, right now and in the future, potentially facing the threat of removal to Rwanda under this cruel and unworkable policy. It is for all of them that we made this challenge and for them we must continue to pursue it,” Moseley said.

Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “We are very disappointed in the outcome of this case. If the government moves ahead with these harmful plans, it would damage the UK’s reputation as a country that values human rights, and undermine our commitment to provide safety to those fleeing conflict and oppression, as enshrined in the 1951 refugee convention.

“Treating people who are in search of safety like human cargo and shipping them off to another country is a cruel policy that will cause great human suffering. The scheme is wrong in principle and unworkable in practice.”

The Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo, said: “This is a positive step in our quest to contribute to innovative, long-term solutions to the global migration crisis.”

In a statement, Braverman said she had always maintained that the policy was lawful and would move forward with it as soon as possible. She is due to address parliament about the deal at 3.30pm on Monday.

Priti Patel, the former home secretary who devised the policy, welcomed the judgment. “No single policy will stop the Channel crossings, but this important policy will save lives,” she said.

Source: The Guardian