This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66051292

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 9 Version 10
Rwanda policy: Government to take Rwanda ruling to Supreme Court Rwanda policy: Suella Braverman says plan to stop the boats is being held back
(about 2 hours later)
More than 45,000 people reached Britain using small boats to cross the English Channel in 2022 Watch: Braverman "disappointed" with Rwanda ruling
The government will seek to appeal against a court decision which rules that plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda are unlawful, Rishi Sunak says. Watch: Braverman "disappointed" with Rwanda ruling
Court of Appeal judges ruled Rwanda had not provided enough safeguards to prove it is a "safe third country". "Phoney humanitarianism" is holding back plans to tackle small boat crossings, the Home Secretary has said.
The prime minister said he "fundamentally disagrees" with the ruling and said the government will challenge it in the Supreme Court. Suella Braverman told MPs the abuse of the UK asylum system was "lining the pockets of people smugglers" and "turning our seas into graveyards".
The charity which brought the challenge welcomed the ruling. It follows a Court of Appeal decision which ruled government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda were unlawful.
A spokesperson for Asylum Aid said the decision was a "vindication of the importance of the rule of law and basic fairness". The charity which brought the challenge welcomed the ruling, but the government says it will appeal.
But Mr Sunak said that while he respects the court's decision he will do "whatever is necessary" to disrupt criminal gangs operating small boat crossings. A spokesperson for Asylum Aid said the decision taken by the court on Thursday was a "vindication of the importance of the rule of law and basic fairness".
He said: "I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries - something that the Lord Chief Justice agrees with. The plan to send people who arrive in the UK illegally to Rwanda was first unveiled in April 2022 in an attempt to deter crossings on the English Channel on small boats.
"Rwanda is a safe country. The High Court agreed. The UNHCR have their own refugee scheme for Libyan refugees in Rwanda. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court." It has been subject to several legal challenges, including the latest at the Court of Appeal where judges ruled that Rwanda had not provided enough safeguards to prove it is a "safe third country".
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said the "system is rigged against the British people" and the government would be appealing against the Court of Appeal's ruling "very swiftly". Two out of the three judges found that there was a risk that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda could then be forced back to the country from where they were originally fleeing. This means the UK government's immigration policy contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against torture.
Speaking to journalists at the Home Office on when deportations to Rwanda may happen, Ms Braverman said the government "will defer to the timetable set by the courts… you'll have to ask the judges." However Ms Braverman said this did not mean that Rwanda itself was not safe.
She is expected to respond to the ruling in the House of Commons later. Addressing the Commons, the Home Secretary said she respected the judgement, but added that it was "disappointing" and that the government would be challenging it.
Ms Braverman said that the "abuse" of the asylum system was "unfair" on local communities, taxpayers and "those who play by the rules".
She added that it "incentivises mass flows of economic migration into Europe, lining the pockets of people smugglers and turning our seas into graveyards, all in the name of a phoney humanitarianism".
Shadow Secretary Yvette Cooper said the government's Rwanda scheme was "completely unravelling" and described it as "unworkable, unethical and extortionately expensive."
"This is their chaos, their Tory chaos, their boats chaos and their broken asylum system," she said.
The Rwandan government insisted it was "one of the safest countries in the world" and had been recognised for its "exemplary treatment of refugees".The Rwandan government insisted it was "one of the safest countries in the world" and had been recognised for its "exemplary treatment of refugees".
The case was brought by 10 people from countries including Syria, Iraq and Albania, who arrived in the UK in small boats, alongside Asylum Aid, who argued the policy was unlawful.
The decision on whether Rwanda could be deemed a safe third country for asylum seekers to have their claims processed is partly based on whether there is a risk that people could be forced back to the country from where they were originally fleeing.
The High Court had backed the government's policy at an earlier hearing but that decision was scrutinised by Appeal Court judges Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill in this latest stage of the process.
Why does the UK want to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?Why does the UK want to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
Land of safety - or fear? Why Rwanda divides opinion
The case was brought by Asylum Aid, which argued the policy was unlawful, as well as 10 people from countries including Syria, Iraq and Albania, who arrived in the UK in small boats.
The High Court had backed the government's policy at an earlier hearing, but that decision was scrutinised by Appeal Court judges Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill in this latest stage of the process.
While Lord Burnett sided with the UK government, the others concluded that the assurances from the Rwandan government were not "sufficient to ensure that there is no real risk that asylum seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy will be wrongly returned to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment".While Lord Burnett sided with the UK government, the others concluded that the assurances from the Rwandan government were not "sufficient to ensure that there is no real risk that asylum seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy will be wrongly returned to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment".
They said that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful "unless and until the deficiencies in [its government's] asylum processes are corrected".They said that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful "unless and until the deficiencies in [its government's] asylum processes are corrected".
The judges stressed their decision "implies no view whatever about the political merits or otherwise of the Rwanda policy" and said that they were unanimous that the Rwandan government's assurances had been made "in good faith". The judges stressed that they all agreed that the Rwandan government's assurances of the policy had been made "in good faith".
Tessa Gregory, a partner at law firm Leigh Day which represented Asylum Aid in the case, said: "We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Rwanda removals process is unlawful on grounds of safety."Tessa Gregory, a partner at law firm Leigh Day which represented Asylum Aid in the case, said: "We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Rwanda removals process is unlawful on grounds of safety."
It acknowledged that not all of the charity's challenges had been accepted by the court, but said the ruling had affirmed there are "clear deficiencies" with the policy.It acknowledged that not all of the charity's challenges had been accepted by the court, but said the ruling had affirmed there are "clear deficiencies" with the policy.
Other human rights groups have welcomed the court's decision, with Freedom From Torture describing it as a "victory for reason and compassion".Other human rights groups have welcomed the court's decision, with Freedom From Torture describing it as a "victory for reason and compassion".
Watch: Braverman "disappointed" with Rwanda ruling The PM has made "stopping the boats" a key government priority
Watch: Braverman "disappointed" with Rwanda ruling The Rwanda policy has hit several roadblocks since it was first announced last April.
The plan to send people who arrive in the UK illegally to Rwanda was first unveiled in April 2022 as the government said it was aiming to deter people from crossing the English Channel in small boats. The first deportation flight was halted minutes before it was due to take off after a legal challenge was granted in June 2022.
But minutes before the first deportation flight was due to take off two months later, it was halted after a legal challenge was granted.
In December, the High Court decided that the plan did not breach the UN's Refugee Convention - which sets out the human rights of anyone seeking asylum - and ruled that it was legal.In December, the High Court decided that the plan did not breach the UN's Refugee Convention - which sets out the human rights of anyone seeking asylum - and ruled that it was legal.
But the following month it was decided that some of the parties in that case should be allowed to appeal against elements of that decision - and have the case heard by the Court of Appeal.But the following month it was decided that some of the parties in that case should be allowed to appeal against elements of that decision - and have the case heard by the Court of Appeal.
The latest decision ruled that, until the Rwandan government can satisfy that it is a safe place for refugees, the UK government's flagship immigration policy will contravene article three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against torture.
Ministers say the policy will deter thousands of people from illegally crossing the Channel, and break up people-smuggling gangs in the process.
This week the Home Office said it expects it to cost £169,000 for every person deported and processed under the Rwanda scheme - more than it currently costs to house an asylum seeker in the UK.This week the Home Office said it expects it to cost £169,000 for every person deported and processed under the Rwanda scheme - more than it currently costs to house an asylum seeker in the UK.
But the same analysis warned rising accommodation costs could mean the cost of housing an asylum claimant in the UK could be £165,000 per person within four years.But the same analysis warned rising accommodation costs could mean the cost of housing an asylum claimant in the UK could be £165,000 per person within four years.
The Home Office says it currently spends almost £7m a day on hotel accommodation to house asylum seekers.The Home Office says it currently spends almost £7m a day on hotel accommodation to house asylum seekers.
Asked after the ruling if the government was confident the first deportation flight would take off before the next general election, a Downing Street spokesman said it couldn't "put a timetable on that". Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he respects the court's decision but he will do "whatever is necessary" to disrupt criminal gangs operating small boat crossings.
Labour's Yvette Cooper said the policy is "completely unravelling" and called it "unworkable, unethical and extortionate". Asked after the ruling if the government was confident the first deportation flight would take off before the next general election, a Downing Street spokesman said it could not "put a timetable on that".
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said the policy would have done nothing to stop "dangerous Channel crossings" and said Ms Braverman should "accept reality" over the Rwanda plan.
Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.
Related TopicsRelated Topics
Home OfficeHome Office
High CourtHigh Court
Refugees and asylum seekersRefugees and asylum seekers
RwandaRwanda