THE Government’s plan to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda is LEGAL, the High Court has ruled today.
It marks a major victory for Ministers who insist the policy is vital to stopping the small boats crisis in the Channel.
Suella Braverman has championed the Rwanda asylum plan
A cabal of left-wing organisations had mounted a legal battle to block the scheme – arguing the “authoritarian” East African country has appalling human rights.
But the Government said the policy is vital to deter the flow of illegal migrants making the perilous trip to Britain on small boats.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said it would be “unforgivable” if the Government did not wrestle back control of its borders by stopping the Channel crossings.
More than 44,000 migrants have made the dangerous journey on crammed dinghies already this year causing a huge backlog of asylum claims, and many have sadly drowned.
Under a plan drawn up by former Home Secretary Priti Patel, the UK has paid Rwanda £120million to process our asylum claims.
But the first deportation flight last June was grounded after leftie lawyers forced a last-minute court order, paving the way for months of legal wrangling.
At a five-day hearing in September, lawyers for several asylum seekers, along with the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) and charities Care4Calais and Detention Action, argued that the plans are unlawful.
They told judges that Rwanda is an “authoritarian state” that “tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”.
The High Court in London also heard the Home Office had been told state agents have “regularly targeted” Rwandan refugees in other countries.
UNHCR – the UN Refugee Agency – intervened in the case, telling the court that Rwanda “lacks irreducible minimum components of an accessible, reliable, fair and efficient asylum system”, and that the policy would lead to a serious risk of breaches of the Refugee Convention.
In October, lawyers for the charity Asylum Aid also challenged the policy, arguing the policy’s procedure is “seriously unfair” and also unlawful.
The policy has also been contested on data protection grounds, with a Sudanese man arguing his personal data has unlawfully been shared with the Rwandan authorities.
Monday’s judgments also come as the charity Christian Aid claims the Home Office failed to take the impact of threats caused by climate change to people in Rwanda into account.
The Home Office has defended the claims, arguing the Rwandan authorities have given “detailed assurances” over the processing of asylum claims and the ongoing treatment of individuals.
These include assurances that people deported to Rwanda will be provided with “adequate accommodation”, food, free medical assistance, education, language and professional development training and “integration programmes”, judges were told.
