Ruling in R (on the application of AAA and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42, five Justice including Lord Reed dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment that the Rwanda policy is unlawful. This is because there are substantial grounds for believing asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement to their country of origin if they were removed to Rwanda.
The case concerned the lawfulness of the policy that certain people seeking asylum in the UK should be sent to Rwanda in order to claim asylum there, their claims being decided by the Rwandan authorities and, if successful, being granted asylum in Rwanda.
Giving the main judgment jointly, Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones said the central issue in the case was ‘not the good faith of the government of Rwanda at the political level, but its practical ability to fulfil its assurances, at least in the short term, in the light of the present deficiencies of the Rwandan asylum system, the past and continuing practice of refoulement (including in the context of an analogous arrangement with Israel), and the scale of the changes in procedure, understanding and culture which are required’.
They said the right of appeal [from Rwanda] to the High Court is ‘completely untested, and there are grounds for concern as to its likely effectiveness.
‘The detection of failures in the asylum system by means of monitoring, however effective it may be, will not prevent those failures from occurring in the first place’.
Nick Emmerson, Law Society president, said: ‘The ruling must also call into question the Illegal Migration Act as a whole as it is heavily connected to the Rwanda policy.
‘The Act is reliant on removing people from the UK. The Rwanda removals agreement has been ruled unlawful and there are currently no other removal agreements in place to “safe” third countries. A growing number of people will be left in limbo under the Act as they cannot be removed, and they cannot be granted asylum.’
Fiona Rutherford, Chief Executive of JUSTICE, said: ‘The government must let go of this cruel, unworkable approach and get back to basics.
‘JUSTICE has long held that the Rwanda plan risks denying people justice, undermining the rule of law, and failing those in need.’
Professor Richard Ekins, of Oxford University, said: ‘The Supreme Court’s judgment leaves open the settlement of refugees in Rwanda. What it shuts down, for now at least, is reliance on Rwandan officials to process asylum claims.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=4a74b61f_1)
