UK Supreme Court rules against Rwandan deportation policy

UK Supreme Court rules against Rwandan deportation policy

The UK Supreme Court has ruled today that the Rwandan deportation policy is unlawful.

The UK Supreme Court has made a significant ruling against the deportation plan of Rwandan individuals as set out in the Rwandan deportation policy. This decision has garnered attention and sparked discussions on the legal and human rights implications involved.

More about the Rwandan deportation policy

The Rwandan deportation policy aimed to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing. It was ruled unlawful because of concerns around the ‘practical ability’ of Rwanda to process asylum seekers.

‘The evidence establishes substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin,’ the ruling said.

The Supreme Court ruling

The case revolved around the potential deportation of individuals to Rwanda. Notably, Rwanda is a country with a troubled history and ongoing concerns regarding human rights abuses.

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, ruled against the deportation plan, citing concerns over  the individuals in question. The policy failed the case’s ‘legal test’ which considered whether asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be put at risk of ‘ill-treatment’ and ‘refoulement,’ or return to their origin countries.

The court emphasised the importance of upholding human rights. It further emphasised the importance of ensuring that individuals are not subjected to inhumane treatment or denied a fair legal process. This ruling reflects the UK’s commitment to international human rights standards and its obligation to protect individuals from potential harm.

Lord Reed, President of the Supreme Court, read out the verdict. He maintained that the Court, after reviewing the evidence of the case, agreed with the Court of Appeal’s previous decision. The Court of Appeal raised concerns that there was ‘real risk of refoulement’ for asylum seekers.

The decision noted that changes could be made to eliminate the risk of refoulement. However, it ultimately maintained that these changes were not currently in place.

‘The home secretary’s appeal is therefore dismissed,’ the Court concluded.

In practical terms, this means that the individuals involved in the case will not be deported to Rwanda. Instead, they will likely remain in the UK, where they can continue to seek protection and safety. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving deportation to countries with questionable human rights records. It highlights the need for thorough assessments and considerations of individual circumstances before making such decisions.

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Statement

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak released a statement responding to the decision.

‘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,’ he said.

In the statement, he maintains that ‘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.’

Prime Ministers Questions

Keir Starmer, Leader of the opposition Labour Party, suggested during the Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) parliamentary proceedings that Sunak should ‘apologise’ for ‘wasting £140m of taxpayers’ cash’ on the Rwandan policy. Starmer also dismissed the policy as a ‘gimmick.’

Newly appointed Home Secretary James Cleverly said that ‘we will carefully review today’s judgment to understand implications and next steps.’ He added, ‘Clearly there is an appetite for this [Rwandan policy] concept.’

Cleverly replaced Suella Braverman, who was removed from her position as Home Secretary on Monday. She stirred up controversy yesterday with a letter to Sunak saying he ‘repeatedly failed’ and ‘betrayed the nation’ on migration.

In PMQs, Cleverly suggested that the Home Office was working on options to remedy the problems outlined in the Court’s judgement. It remains to be seen whether the government will be able to change the Rwandan policy to suit the Court’s requirements.

What does the ruling on the Rwandan deportation policy mean?

The decision of the Supreme Court has broader implications beyond this specific case. It reaffirms the principle that deportation plans must be carefully evaluated. This ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving deportation to countries with questionable human rights records.

The UK Supreme Court’s ruling against the Rwandan deportation plan demonstrates the importance of a fair and just legal system that prioritises the protection of human rights. It highlights the role of the judiciary in upholding these principles and ensuring that individuals are not subjected to harm or unfair treatment. This decision serves as a reminder of the UK’s commitment to international human rights standards and its dedication to providing a safe haven for those in need.

What happens next?

Following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling against the Rwandan deportation plan, there are several potential next steps that could be taken.

Firstly, the UK government may need to reassess its deportation policy and procedures in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. This could involve reviewing the criteria used to determine the risk of torture or unfair trials in destination countries. Additionally it would be important to ensure that these assessments are thorough and comprehensive.

Additionally, the government may need to consider alternative options for dealing with individuals who were subject to the deportation plan. This could involve exploring avenues such as granting asylum or providing other forms of protection to those who face potential harm if returned to Rwanda.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could lead to calls for legislative changes or policy reforms. This could ensure that deportation decisions align with international human rights standards and provide adequate safeguards for individuals at risk.

Furthermore, the ruling may have implications for future deportation cases involving countries with similar human rights concerns.

Setting a precedent

Overall, the UK Supreme Court’s decision against the Rwandan deportation policy is likely to have a significant impact on how deportation cases are handled in the future.

The specific actions taken in response to this ruling will depend on various factors. These including the government’s response and any subsequent legal or policy developments.

In the coming weeks, the ruling could spark further debates around the UK leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Leaving the ECHR is an option that Braverman and other Conservatives have floated as necessary to pass tougher immigration laws.

However, Lord Reed noted in his decision that the UK would be obligated to respect the non-refoulement principle. This hold true even if it left the ECHR.

With over 100,000 people arriving in the UK through illegal crossings since 2018, migration policy is unlikely to leave the government’s agenda.

Download factsheet