This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/29/plan-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-is-unlawful-uk-appeal-court-rules

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Braverman plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful, appeal court rules Braverman plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful, appeal court rules
(32 minutes later)
Judges rule against policy after high court previously found it was lawful to send some people to Rwanda to have claims processed Judges decide there is a risk refugees sent to east African state would be returned home, so it is not a ‘safe third country’
Court of appeal judges have ruled by a majority of two to one that it is unlawful for the UK government to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to have their claims processed.Court of appeal judges have ruled by a majority of two to one that it is unlawful for the UK government to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to have their claims processed.
The ruling from Lord Burnett, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill follows a four-day hearing in April against a high court ruling last December that found it was lawful to send some asylum seekers, including small boat arrivals, to Rwanda to have their claims processed rather than dealing with their applications for sanctuary in the UK.The ruling from Lord Burnett, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill follows a four-day hearing in April against a high court ruling last December that found it was lawful to send some asylum seekers, including small boat arrivals, to Rwanda to have their claims processed rather than dealing with their applications for sanctuary in the UK.
The illegal migration bill, now passing through parliament, states that all asylum seekers arriving via “irregular means” could face being forcibly removed to Rwanda.The illegal migration bill, now passing through parliament, states that all asylum seekers arriving via “irregular means” could face being forcibly removed to Rwanda.
Those who supported the appeal against the ruling include the UN’s refugee agency UNHCR, lawyers, charities and a group of asylum seekers.Those who supported the appeal against the ruling include the UN’s refugee agency UNHCR, lawyers, charities and a group of asylum seekers.
The court heard from UNHCR that Rwanda had a record of human rights abuses towards refugees within its borders, including refoulement – forced removal to countries where they are at risk – expulsions and arbitrary detention. The refugee agency warned that the Home Office would not be able to guarantee the safety of asylum seekers who were deported to the east African country. The court heard from UNHCR that Rwanda had a record of human rights abuses towards refugees within its borders, including refoulement – forced removal to countries where they are at risk – expulsions and arbitrary detention. The refugee agency said that the Home Office would not be able to guarantee the safety of asylum seekers who were deported to the east African country.
But Sir James Eadie KC, counsel for the home secretary, Suella Braverman, said she was confident that the government of Rwanda would abide by undertakings given in a memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries.But Sir James Eadie KC, counsel for the home secretary, Suella Braverman, said she was confident that the government of Rwanda would abide by undertakings given in a memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries.
Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania who arrived in the UK via irregular means crossing the Channel in small boats brought the case along with the charity Asylum Aid.
The key issue before the court was whether Rwanda was capable of delivering reliable outcomes on asylum claims and whether there was a risk that asylum seekers would be forcibly removed to their home countries after arriving in Rwanda even if they had strong asylum claims.
The court ruled that due to deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system there was a real risk that people sent to Rwanda would be returned to their home countries, where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment, when in fact they had a good claim for asylum.
The court’s conclusion was that Rwanda is not a “safe third country” even though assurances provided by the Rwandan government were provided in good faith.
The judges found that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would be a breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights.
The judges unanimously rejected other grounds of appeal in the case.
A spokesperson for the government of Rwanda said: “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.
“Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world and we have been recognised by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.
“We make a significant contribution to dealing with the impacts of the global migration crisis. Rwandans know what it means to be forced to flee home, and to make a new life in a new country. As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans. Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this.
Sign up to First Edition
Archie Bland and Nimo Omer take you through the top stories and what they mean, free every weekday morning
after newsletter promotion
“Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. The broken global migration system is failing to protect the vulnerable, and empowering criminal smuggling gangs at an immeasurable human cost. When the migrants do arrive, we will welcome them and provide them with the support they’ll need to build new lives in Rwanda.”
Lawyers for the appellants and human rights campaigners welcomed the ruling.
Toufique Hossain of Duncan Lewis solicitors, who represented some of the appellants said: “The home secretary’s ‘dream’ and ‘obsession’ is in tatters. The court of appeal has ruled by a majority that Rwanda is not a safe third country. We speak on behalf of all our deeply vulnerable clients in thanking the court for its decision.”
Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “We are relieved that the court of appeal has ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for people who claim asylum. However, we’re disappointed that they have not concluded that the overall policy is unlawful.
“Let’s remember that the UK made an international commitment under the refugee convention to provide a safe haven for those fleeing for their lives who seek protection on our soil. This is a source of pride for British people. We must not now turn our backs on this commitment and on the men, women and children from countries like Sudan and Afghanistan who come to us for safety.”
Sonya Sceats, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, who intervened in the case, said: “This is a victory for reason and compassion. We are delighted that the appeal verdict has affirmed what the caring people of this country already knew: 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.”