[ad_1]
Receive free UK immigration updates
We’ll send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding up the latest UK immigration news every morning.
Ministers are to seek to appeal against a court ruling that found the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful because the African nation cannot be considered safe.
In a setback for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his efforts to curb the number of migrants coming to the UK in small boats over the English Channel, the Court of Appeal ruled against the government because of flaws in Rwanda’s asylum system.
Sunak said he “fundamentally” disagreed with the court ruling, adding the government would seek permission to appeal against the decision at the Supreme Court.
The government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is a key part of its policy on what it calls illegal migration.
The High Court had ruled in December that the plan, which has polarised public opinion, was lawful.
Its decision that Rwanda was a safe third country was challenged by human rights organisations, and evidence provided by the UN High Commission for Refugees was central to their case.
In a majority verdict released on Thursday, the Court of Appeal ruled that, because of deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum system, “there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum”.
As a result, the court reversed the High Court’s decision, ruling that “unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful”.
Sunak responded to the latest court ruling by saying that Rwanda “is a safe country”, adding that the government should decide who comes to the UK, “not criminal gangs” — a reference to people traffickers running boats across the Channel. “I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen,” he said.
The prime minister in January made curbing the number of people coming to Britain in small boats one of his core policy pledges after a record of more than 45,000 arrived in 2022.
Rwanda also disputed the court ruling. “While this is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees,” said Yolande Makolo, a government spokesperson.
Lord chief justice Ian Burnett dissented from the Court of Appeal’s majority opinion — a rare instance in English courts.
The court rejected other aspects of the appeal brought by human rights organisations, including their claim that the government’s policy would put the UK in breach of the UN Refugee Convention.
Home secretary Suella Braverman told MPs the court had found in the government’s favour on most aspects of the case and she hoped an appeal at the Supreme Court could happen quickly.
“This judgment is disappointing for the majority of the British people who have repeatedly voted for controlled immigration” she said.
Tony Muman, a lawyer representing one of the appellants at the Court of Appeal, described the ruling as a “big victory” that made it more doubtful the government could begin sending people to Rwanda before the UK general election expected next year.
Sonya Sceats, chief executive of Freedom from Torture, one of the charities involved in the appeal, said the verdict had affirmed that “the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, it flies in the face of the laws of this country”.
The UK gave Rwanda an initial £120mn after it agreed in April 2022 to accept asylum seekers sent from Britain.
The Home Office released an economic impact report this week showing that on top of that upfront payment, the cost of deporting people to the country would be about £170,000 per person.
Thursday’s ruling casts doubt not only on the ability of ministers to implement the Rwanda plan, but also the government’s illegal migration bill, which is facing strong cross-party opposition in the House of Lords.
The legislation will bar people who come to the UK without prior permission from claiming asylum and place a legal obligation on the Home Office to detain and deport them.
Peter William Walsh, researcher at the Oxford Migration Observatory think-tank, said that even with a Rwanda plan in place, it would not be easy to enact the legislation.
“If there are no safe third countries accepting the UK’s asylum seekers, the core idea behind the policy can’t be implemented,” he added. “In essence, all the eggs are in one basket and this basket is looking fragile.”
[ad_2]
Source link