RWANDA RULING
Deportation plan to send asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is legal, High Court rules
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.
1
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 after months of wrangling, Lord Justice Lewis ruled: "The court has concluded that it is lawful for the Government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom.
"On the evidence before this court, the Government has made arrangements with the government of Rwanda which are intended to ensure that the asylum claims of people relocated to Rwanda are properly determined in Rwanda."
READ MORE ON RWANDA
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she is "committed" to getting Rwanda flights going.
“Our ground-breaking Migration Partnership with Rwanda will provide individuals relocated with support to build new lives there, while disrupting the business model of people smuggling gangs putting lives at risk through dangerous and illegal small boat crossings."
Most read in The Sun
The Government had claimed Rwanda is a safe country where asylum seekers would receive sufficient treatment.
They argue the policy is essential to deter the flow of illegal migrants making the perilous trip to Britain on small boats.
Ms Braverman said it would be “unforgivable” if the Government did not wrestle back control of its borders by stopping the 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 Ms 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.
Tory MPs cheered the court ruling. The scheme's architect Priti Patel said: "This policy will help break the business model of evil people smuggling gangs, prevent dangerous and illegal small boat crossings, and save lives."
Boris Johnson said: "It is one of the only humane ways of dealing with the vile people trafficking gangs who are exploiting so many people.
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.
READ MORE SUN STORIES
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.