Judges urged to block Home Office plans to send refugees to Rwanda

Court of appeal hears Rwanda plan will expose refugees to ‘serious harm’ and is incompatible with UK’s international obligations

Senior judges have been urged to block government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

In a four-day hearing at the court of appeal, which concluded on Thursday, the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett, master of the rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill, deputy president of the civil division of the appeal court, heard an appeal against a high court ruling last December that it was lawful to send some asylum seekers, including small boat arrivals, to Rwanda to have their claims processed rather than dealing with their applications for sanctuary in the UK.

The new illegal migration bill, now passing through parliament, states that all asylum seekers arriving via “irregular means” could face being forcibly removed to Rwanda.

Those supporting the appeal against the ruling include the UN’s refugee agency, lawyers, charities and a group of asylum seekers. The court heard from UNHCR that Rwanda has a record of human rights abuses towards refugees within its borders, including refoulement – forced removal to countries where they are at risk – expulsions and arbitrary detention. The refugee agency warned that the Home Office will not be able to guarantee the safety of asylum seekers who are deported to the east African country.

However, Sir James Eadie, counsel for Suella Braverman, said the home secretary was confident that the government of Rwanda would abide by undertakings given in a memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries.

“It’s a scheme which falls to be judged on its own terms,” he said. “Whatever is controversial about Rwanda in the past, this is a new context with some of these specific concerns in mind.”

Raza Husain KC, representing six individual asylum seekers, told the court there were “serious evidential gaps and deficiencies” that the judges at the high court had not properly examined.

He described Rwanda as “a highly autocratic repressive state” that “imprisons, tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”.

The hearing, attended by more than 30 barristers, was also told the high court judges who found the Rwanda policy to be lawful did not properly consider a similar arrangement between Israel and Rwanda, which operated between 2013 and 2018.

The court heard that refugees sent from Tel Aviv were detained without the opportunity of claiming asylum, often justified on the grounds of “security concerns” – and then arrested for not having the proper documentation. Some asylum seekers subsequently disappeared, others were smuggled to Uganda, and a number died while fleeing Rwanda and attempting to reach Libya.

The Rwanda plan will expose refugees to “serious harm” and the policy is incompatible with the UK’s international obligations, UNHCR said.

“Removal to Rwanda pursuant to the UK-Rwanda arrangement will expose asylum-seekers to a real risk of breaches of the refugee convention,” Angus McCullough, a lawyer for the office of the high commissioner for refugees, said in written arguments submitted to the court.

The charity Asylum Aid, which appealed against the high court ruling alongside the group of asylum seekers, argued that those threatened with being sent to Rwanda have a right to a fair and reasonable decision-making process and that this will not be possible with the seven days allocated under the proposed system to make representations. The charity Freedom From Torture was given permission to intervene in the case.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judges did not give a date by which they will make their ruling, saying only “it will take as long as it takes”.


Diane Taylor

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Braverman plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful, appeal court rules
Rishi Sunak announces government will seek supreme court appeal, but Labour says policy is unravelling after judges’ decision

Diane Taylor and Ben Quinn

29, Jun, 2023 @1:31 PM

Article image
Over 24,000 UK asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda despite court ruling
Home Office sent 24,083 letters of intent warning refugees they were being considered for forcible removal

Diane Taylor

30, Jun, 2023 @3:03 PM

Article image
Braverman says appeal court ruling on Rwanda ‘disappointing for majority of British people’ – as it happened
Home secretary says government will seek leave to appeal against judgment as she gives statement to MPs

Andrew Sparrow

29, Jun, 2023 @5:13 PM

Article image
Home Office threatens to send heavily pregnant rape survivor to Rwanda
Eritrean woman, 28, in acute distress having spent most of her life in search of safety

Diane Taylor

13, Oct, 2022 @6:39 PM

Article image
Home Office admits LGBTQI+ refugees could be persecuted if sent to Rwanda
Report on policy to send gay and lesbian asylum seekers to country raises concerns over possible treatment

Rajeev Syal and Haroon Siddique

10, May, 2022 @1:08 PM

Article image
Home Office misled refugees about UN involvement in Rwanda plans, court told
Letters to asylum seekers assured them UNHCR was ‘closely involved’ in deportation scheme, high court hears

Diane Taylor and Rajeev Syal

10, Jun, 2022 @3:20 PM

Article image
Home Office detains all asylum seekers it plans to send to Rwanda
Department says previously announced option of serving arrivals to UK with notices while living in community has not been used

Diane Taylor

22, May, 2022 @4:09 PM

Article image
Home Office planning new deportation flight to Rwanda
Some asylum seekers have received letters saying government intends to remove them, the Guardian has learned

Diane Taylor

25, Aug, 2022 @9:28 AM

Article image
Judges allow partial appeal against Rwanda asylum seeker ruling
The two judges previously found the Home Office’s plan to be lawful and rejected some grounds for appeal

Diane Taylor

16, Jan, 2023 @4:32 PM

Article image
UK Home Office plans second flight to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda
Flight could take off within weeks and before court has ruled on whether scheme is lawful

Diane Taylor

03, Jul, 2022 @3:00 PM