Rwanda appeal ruling – live: Braverman says ‘it’s not over yet’ as she doubles down on ‘unlawful’ asylum deal

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper: “Ministers were forced to admit this week that it will cost £169,000 to send each person to Rwanda on top of the £140m of taxpayers’ money they have already spent.

“Now the court has found that ministers didn’t even do the basic work to make sure the scheme was legal or safe.

“Time and again, ministers have gone for gimmicks instead of getting a grip, and slogans instead of solutions, while the Tory boats chaos has got worse. The Rwanda scheme is unworkable, unethical and extortionate, a costly and damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking.

“They should now put that money into Labour’s plan to go after the criminal gangs, clear the asylum backlog and stop dangerous boat crossings that are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk.”

Tessa Gregory, a partner at law firm Leigh Day which represented Asylum Aid, said: “We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Rwanda removals process is unlawful on grounds of safety.

“Although it did not find in favour of Asylum Aid’s claim that the fast-track process was also unlawful it recognised problems around the shortcut process, including that lawyers are needed and representations by individuals on general issues can and should be made.

“There are clear deficiencies in the process, some of which have been recognised by the court and Asylum Aid will consider whether it is necessary to appeal.”

In the judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos said: “It falls to this court to consider the ‘safety of Rwanda issues’ afresh. In deciding those issues, special regard should be paid by the court to the views of the UNHCR (the UN refugee agency) on the grounds of its special expertise and the fact that the subject matter is within its remit.”

He added there were “substantial grounds” to think that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda faced “real risks” of torture or inhuman treatment, or that their claims for asylum would not be properly determined in the east African nation.

The judge continued: “That is the consequence of the historical record described by the UNHCR, the significant concerns of the UNHCR itself, and the factual realities of the current asylum process in Rwanda.

“In practice, Rwanda can only deliver on its good faith assurances if it has control mechanisms and systems in place to enable it to do so.

“Both history and the current situation demonstrate that those mechanisms have not yet been delivered. They may in the future be delivered but they are not, on the evidence, there now.”

The Liberal Democrats called on Home Secretary Suella Braverman to “accept reality” over the Rwanda plan.

The party’s home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: “Not only is the Conservatives’ Rwanda asylum plan immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers, but the Court of Appeal has also now said it is unlawful, too.

“It will do nothing to stop dangerous Channel crossings – and it runs roughshod over the UK’s legal obligations, as the courts have confirmed.

“The Home Secretary needs to finally accept reality. Instead of wasting even more taxpayer money by defending this plan in the courts, the Home Secretary should scrap her vanity project and focus on tackling the asylum backlog created by her own Government’s incompetence.”

Following the ruling, Rishi Sunak tweeted: “It is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs.”

He said that while he respects the court, he “fundamentally” disagrees with their conclusion and confirmed that the Goverment would be seeking to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Sonya Sceats, Chief Executive of Freedom from Torture, said: “This is a victory for reason and compassion. We are delighted that the appeal verdict has affirmed what the caring people of this country already knew: the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, it flies in the face of the laws of this country.”

“Every day in Freedom from Torture’s therapy rooms, torture survivors confide in our clinicians their fears this expulsion scheme has generated amongst people seeking safety in this country. As we outlined in our intervention in the Court of Appeal, this dirty deal with Rwanda does too little to identify and protect survivors and other vulnerable groups and would see them placed at risk of further harm.

“Sunak’s inhumane policy has sparked anger across the UK, from protesters on the streets to faith leaders and cultural icons. If he is serious about offering sanctuary to those most in need, he should focus on rebuilding a fair and compassionate asylum system, one that welcomes and offers a fair hearing to refugees no matter how they arrive.”

At the appeal hearing in April, lawyers for the group of asylum seekers argued that the High Court “showed excessive deference” to the Home Office’s assessment that assurances made by the Rwandan authorities “provide a sufficient guarantee to protect relocated asylum-seekers” from a risk of torture or inhumane treatment.

The three appeal judges were told that material provided by the Rwandan authorities “lacked credibility, consisting of blanket denials and clear contradictions”.

Judges declaring the British government’s plans to forcibly deport small boat migrants to Rwanda unlawful made a series of scathing findings.

A 161-page ruling said the country was not safe for the purpose of receiving asylum seekers, and that ministers were wrong to rely on unevidenced assurances that “seriously deficient” processes would be improved.

A judge said the Home Office had ignored “the past and the present situation”, and failed to probe the disappearance and death of migrants sent to Rwanda under a previous deal with Israel.

The court said the government had responded to damning evidence from the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) with “not very satisfactory” statements that were “dependent on information supplied by the government of Rwanda” itself.

Lord Justice Underhill said: “Perhaps as the result of the pressure of the timetable to which they were required to work, I believe that the [Home Office] officials in question were too ready to accept assurances which were unparticularised or unevidenced or the details of which were unexplored.”

Sir Geoffrey Vos, who also decided the case, said the government had ignored or sidelined evidence including the mass shooting of refugees by Rwandan police during a 2018 protest and the disastrous Israel deal.

“I do not accept that the past and the present can either be ignored or side-lined as the home secretary suggests,” he added. “The likelihood of promises being performed must, anyway in part, be judged by reference to what has happened in the past and the capacity and capability of the entity making the promises to keep them.”

Rishi Sunak said he respects the Court of Appeal’s judgement on the Rwanda policy but “disagreed fundamentally” with its conclusions.

The prime minister said he “strongly believes” Rwanda is a safe country, confirming that the government will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: “I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries – something that the Lord Chief Justice agrees with.

“Rwanda is a safe country. The High Court agreed. The UNHCR have their own refugee scheme for Libyan refugees in Rwanda. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

“The policy of this government is very simple, it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen.”

Responding to the Court of Appeal’s judgement on the Government’s Rwanda policy, Steve Smith MBE, the CEO of refugee charity Care4Calais who brought an earlier legal challenge against the policy, said:

“We have always believed that the Government’s Rwanda policy is cruel, immoral and that it is not a safe country to remove refugees too. We are immensely relieved to hear that the Court of Appeal agrees.

“Survivors of war, torture and human rights abuses have had great pain and torment inflicted on them by our Government threatening them with removal to Rwanda. Amongst the people we are supporting there have been attempted suicides and self-harm due to the fear caused by the Rwanda policy. Now, after all that trauma, judges have ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country.

“After today’s judgement, it’s time the Government abandoned its brutal Rwanda policy and any alternative proposal to shirk the UK’s responsibility for people seeking asylum. Instead, they should offer safe passage to refugees in Calais as the effective and compassionate way to put smugglers out of business, end small boat crossings and save lives.”