Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda faces more delays as judges allow campaigners to challenge ruling that deportation deal is lawful at Court of Appeal

• The Government faces a further challenge to Rwanda plans in Court of Appeal 
• Charity Asylum Aid plans to challenge parts of ruling relating to migrants’ safety
• Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift dismissed legal challenges in December
• But today, they allowed parts of their ruling to be scrutinised by senior judges 

The Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda faced a further setback today after a group of individuals and a charity were granted permission to bring their legal challenge to the Court of Appeal.

Two High Court judges ruled in December that the Rwanda policy was lawful overall – a decision which Home Secretary Suella Braverman proclaimed as a victory.

But at hearing today, the two judges gave the go-ahead for aspects of their ruling to be reconsidered by senior judges – plunging the timescale for the Rwanda flights once again into uncertainty.

The Court of Appeal will be asked to consider a range of issues, including whether plan is an unlawful penalty under the Refugee Convention, whether sufficient safeguards are in place for asylum seekers at risk of persecution, and crucially, the December ruling on whether the policy was lawful.

Following the High Court’s ruling last December, Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she is ‘committed’ to sending migrants to Rwanda as soon as possible

The first deportation flight – due to take off on June 14 last year – was grounded amid a series of objections against individual removals and the policy as a whole

A group of individual claimants and charity Asylum Aid were granted permission to bring their cases to the Court of Appeal by Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift.

Asylum Aid, which provides legal advice to asylum seekers and refugees, will challenge parts of the December ruling related to the safety of Rwanda for migrants.

Carolin Ott, a solicitor representing Asylum Aid, told The Independent: ‘We look forward to presenting our client’s case that the procedure adopted by the Home Office to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unfair and consequently unlawful.’

No date has been set for the hearing, and the Court of Appeal may also be asked to consider other issues which Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift refused permission to appeal against.

In April last year, then-home secretary Priti Patel signed an agreement with Rwanda for it to receive migrants deemed by the UK to have arrived ‘illegally’, and therefore inadmissible under new immigration rules.

Several challenges were brought against the proposals, which were described at the time as a ‘world-first agreement’ in a bid to deter migrants from crossing the Channel.

The first deportation flight – due to take off on June 14 – was then grounded amid a series of objections against individual removals and the policy as a whole.

Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift today granted a number of individual claimants and charity Asylum Aid permission to appeal

‘HIGH COURT RULING VINDICATES RWANDA PLAN’, SAYS SUELLA BRAVERMAN 

Addressing the ruling in the Commons on December 19, Suella Braverman urged Labour critics to get behind the scheme – but could not say when flights would start.

‘This judgment thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership. I spoke earlier today with my Rwandan counterpart, the Rwandan minister, Vincent Biruta, and we both confirmed our joint and steadfast resolve to deliver this partnership at scale as soon as possible,’ she said.

‘It’s what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to see happen. The sooner it is up and running, the sooner we will break the business model of the evil gangs and bring an end to these illegal, unnecessary and unsafe Channel crossings.

‘Now that our courts have affirmed its legality, I invite the opposition to get behind this plan and I commend this statement to the House.’

However, at the High Court in London in December, senior judges rejected arguments that the plans were unlawful.

Lord Justice Lewis, sitting with Mr Justice Swift, dismissed the challenges against the policy – which has already seen the UK pay Rwanda £140 million – as a whole.

However, they did rule in favour of eight asylum seekers, finding the Government had acted wrongly in their individual cases.

Following the ruling, Ms Braverman said: ‘I am committed to making this partnership work – my focus remains on moving ahead with the policy as soon as possible and we stand ready to defend against any further legal challenge.’

And Dover MP Natalie Elphicke added said: ‘Left-wing organisations need to stop using endless appeals to overturn democracy and waste taxpayers’ money. It’s time they accepted the determination of UK courts.

‘Let’s all get behind action to stop the small boats crossings, save lives at sea and prevent people falling prey to organised criminality.’

The UK Government has so far refused to put a date on when the first flight to Kigali could take off, recognising the threat of further legal action.

The Home Office previously said ministers ‘stand ready’ to defend against further legal challenges to the Rwanda deportation policy.

It came as a new poll showed that almost three quarters (72 per cent) of voters disapprove of the Government’s handling of immigration. 

Some 73 per cent of those quizzed by YouGov were unhappy said the system was being run in an incompetent or chaotic matter.

The first Rwanda flight – due to take off on June 14 – was grounded after legal challenges to individual removals and the policy as a whole  

Labour branded the Government’s Rwanda plan ‘unworkable’ and ‘unethical’. 

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: ‘The Rwanda scheme is a damaging distraction from the urgent action the Government should be taking to go after the criminal gangs and sort out the asylum system.

‘It is unworkable, unethical, extortionately expensive.

‘Ministers have already written a £140m cheque to Rwanda without the policy even starting, with millions more promised even though Home Office officials say there’s no evidence it’ll provide a deterrent and it risks making trafficking worse.

‘The Rwandan government has said it can only process 200 people a year – or 0.5% of Channel crossings this year. It’s no surprise that the Home Secretary herself has described the scheme as a failure.’ 

Meanwhile, Liberal Democrats called the initiative ‘immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly’. 

Refugee charities also voiced their opposition to today’s ruling.  

Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said: ‘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.’ 

Amnesty International UK said the Rwanda plan should be ‘abandoned in its entirety’. 

Source: Read Full Article