Immigration and

asylum
Supreme court rejects Rishi Sunak’s
plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
Judges uphold appeal court ruling over risk to deported refugees
and deals blow to PM’s ‘stop the boats’ strategy
UK politics live @ latest updates

00:01:31
Rajeev Syal and Diane
Taylor
Wed 15 Nov 2023 11.34 GMT

Supreme court says Sunak's plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful – video
Rishi Sunak’s key immigration policy has been dealt a blow after the UK’s
highest court rejected the government’s plans to deport people seeking
asylum to Rwanda.

Five judges at the supreme court unanimously upheld an appeal court ruling
that found there was a real risk of deported refugees having their claims in
the east African country wrongly assessed or being returned to their country
of origin to face persecution.

The ruling undermines one of the prime minister’s key pledges: to “stop the
boats”. The government claimed that the £140m Rwanda scheme would be a
key deterrent for growing numbers of asylum seekers reaching the UK via
small boats travelling across the Channel, a claim that refugee charities have
rejected.

Reading out the judgment, Lord Reed, the president of the supreme court,
said the judges agreed unanimously with the court of appeal ruling that there
was a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda, resulting in
asylum seekers being wrongly returned to their country of origin.

He pointed to crucial evidence from the United Nations’ refugee agency, the
UNHCR, which highlighted the failure of a similar deportation agreement
between Israel and Rwanda.
Most viewed
The ruling came the day after the sacked home secretary, Suella Braverman, OpenAI fires co<founder
released an incendiary letter accusing the prime minister of breaking an CEO Sam Altman for
agreement to insert clauses into UK law that would have “blocked off” legal allegedly lying to compa
board
challenges under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and the
Human Rights Act. Apple, Disney and IBM t
pause ads on X after
Braverman said Sunak had no “credible plan B” and added: “If we lose in the antisemitic Elon Musk
supreme court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be tweet
prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an act of parliament, only to
arrive back at square one.” Australian naval divers
injured after being
A meeting of hard-right Conservative MPs on Wednesday morning to subjected to Chinese
consider the judgment was expected to back calls to leave the ECHR. warship’s sonar pulses

Sir John Hayes, a close ally of Braverman, said on Tuesday that in the event Israeli forces ‘determine
of losing, ministers should table a narrow piece of legislation to enact the advance’, says military I
happened
Rwanda plan before Christmas, and later include withdrawing from the
ECHR in the Tory election manifesto.
World Cup final is a
Reacting to the ruling, Sunak said the government would consider its next coronation but cricket’s
steps and claimed there was a “plan B”, despite Braverman’s criticisms. rulers are not in doubt
He said: “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.

“Crucially, the supreme court – like the court of appeal and the high court
before it – has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a
safe third country for processing is lawful.”

The home secretary, James Cleverly, said: “Our partnership with Rwanda,
while bold and ambitious, is just one part of a vehicle of measures to stop the
boats and tackle illegal migration.

“But clearly there is an appetite for this concept. Across Europe, illegal
migration is increasing and governments are following our lead: Italy,
Germany and Austria are all exploring models similar to our partnership with
Rwanda.”

The judgment will raise serious questions about expenditure on the scheme.
More than £140m has already been paid to the Rwandan government. The
government has refused to disclose a further breakdown of costs on the
scheme and on legal fees.

A spokesperson for the Rwandan government said: “The money has been
already allocated to a number of government projects.”

Reed said the legal test in the case was whether there were substantial
grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real
risk of being sent back to the countries they came from, where they could
face ill treatment.

Sign up to First Edition Free daily newsletter

Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you
what’s happening and why it matters
Enter your email address
Sign up

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside
parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the
Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

“In the light of the evidence which I have summarised, the court of appeal
concluded that there were such grounds. We are unanimously of the view
that they were entitled to reach that conclusion. Indeed, having been taken
through the evidence ourselves, we agree with their conclusion,” he said.

Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said it was a
victory for men, women and children who simply wanted to be safe.

He said: “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 should be focusing on creating a functioning
asylum system that allows people who seek safety in the UK a fair hearing on
our soil and provides safe routes so they don’t have to take dangerous
journeys.”

Toufique Hossain of Duncan Lewis solicitors, one of the lawyers representing

asylum seekers who brought the legal challenge, said: “This is a victory for
our brave clients who stood up to an inhumane policy. It is also a victory for
the rule of law itself and the separation of powers, despite the noise. It is a
timely reminder that governments must operate within the law. We hope
that now our clients are able to dream of a better, safer future.”

Sonya Sceats, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, said: “This is a
victory for reason and compassion. We are delighted that the supreme court
has affirmed what caring people already knew: the UK government’s ‘cash for
humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, but it also flies in the
face of the laws of this country.

“The stakes of this case could not have been higher. Every day in our therapy
rooms we see the terror that this scheme has inflicted on survivors of torture
who have come to the UK seeking sanctuary.”

Steve Smith, the chief executive of the refugee charity Care4Calais, a

claimant in the initial legal challenge, said the judgment was “a victory for
humanity”.

He added: “This grubby, cash-for-people deal was always cruel and immoral
but, most importantly, it is unlawful. Hundreds of millions of pounds have
been spent on this cruel policy, and the only receipts the government has are
the pain and torment inflicted on the thousands of survivors of war, torture
and modern slavery they have targeted with it.

“Today’s judgment should bring this shameful mark on the UK’s history to a
close. Never again should our government seek to shirk our country’s
responsibility to offer sanctuary to those caught up in horrors around the
world.”

Care4Calais continues to support claimants in the case.

You've read 6 articles in the last year Article count on

…as you’re joining us today from Hong Kong, we have a small favour to
ask.
The Guardian has spent the past 13 years tirelessly investigating the
shortcomings of the Tories in office – austerity, Brexit, partygate, cronyism,
the Truss debacle and the individual failings of ministers who behave as if
the rules don’t apply to them.
Our work has resulted in resignations, apologies and policy corrections.
Our continued revelations about the conveyor belt of Tory dysfunction are
the latest in a long line of important scoops. And with an election just
round the corner, we won’t stop now. It’s crucial that we can all make
informed decisions about who is best to lead the UK. Will you invest in the
Guardian this year?
Unlike many others, the Guardian has no shareholders and no billionaire
owner. Just the determination and passion to deliver high-impact global
reporting, always free from commercial or political influence. Reporting
like this is vital for democracy, for fairness and to demand better from the
powerful.
And we provide all this for free, for everyone to read. We do this because
we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep
track of the events shaping our world, understand their impact on people
and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action. Millions
can benefit from open access to quality, truthful news, regardless of their
ability to pay for it.
Whether you give a little or a lot, your funding will power our reporting for
the years to come. If you can, please support us on a monthly basis from
just $2. It takes less than a minute to set up, and you can rest assured that
you’re making a big impact every single month in support of open,
independent journalism. Thank you.

One-time Monthly Annual

$3 per month $6 per month Other

Continue Remind me in December