UK Supreme Court Hears Arguments about the Government’s ‘Rwanda Policy’
On 9 October 2023 the controversial decision of the UK Home Secretary to deport asylum seekers whose applications are deemed to be inadmissible to Rwanda reached the UK Supreme Court. The claimants, all asylum seekers who came either by boat or by lorry to the UK, were informed by the Home Secretary that they were facing deportation to Rwanda under the controversial Migration and Economic Development Partnership (‘MEDP’) known as the ‘Rwanda Policy’. Under this policy the Rwandan authorities would decide the merits of their asylum claims. The claimants have challenged the lawfulness of their deportation and were successful in the Court of Appeal. If the Supreme Court rules the same way, this would be a major blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's promise to stop migrants from arriving in the country by boat as most of the applications of migrants who arrive this way are deemed inadmissible.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling stated that the ‘Rwanda Policy’ is illegal under paragraphs 35A to 35D of the Immigration Rules as well as a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). Paragraphs 35A to 35D of the Immigration Rules state that the Home Secretary may remove an asylum seeker to a ‘safe’ third party country if they are deemed inadmissible for asylum in the UK and the third-party country has agreed to accept them. The Court of Appeal deemed that Rwanda did not meet the requirement of a ‘safe’ country. Under Rwandan law, there is a real risk that the claimants would not only not be granted asylum but also be sent back to their home countries where they would face persecution and inhumane treatment. This in turn violates the ECHR. Article 3 of the ECHR states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. For this reason, the Court of Appeal upheld the claimants’ appeal. The Home Secretary then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on the issue. The Government’s lawyer contends that this plan under the MEDP is necessary because there is “a serious and pressing need to take effective steps that will act as a deterrent to those undertaking the perilous and sometimes life-threatening journey” of coming by boat. However, the lawyer representing eight of the claimants has pointed out that Rwanda is “an authoritarian, one-party state” and that its regime “repeatedly imprisons, tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”. The potential impacts on immigration/asylum practice in the UK and the potential lasting consequences of this decision have prompted the UN to intervene. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’) has argued that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is not safe and in court filings, the UNHCR’s lawyer has stated that the UNHCR “maintains its unequivocal warning against the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda”.
If the Supreme Court finds in favour of the claimants, this will be a major blow to the Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's plan to “stop the boats”, a key promise of his administration. Immigration remains an issue that concerns large swaths of the public and surveys demonstrate that the public consensus is that the matter is not being handled well. Additionally, some members of Sunak’s party have stated that they wish to withdraw from the ECHR to prevent its rules from impacting UK immigration law and policy – although there have been no official moves to put this plan into action as of yet. The Supreme Court is set to finish hearing arguments on 11 October 2023, although a judgement is not expected until early November.
Click here for the UK Supreme Court Case Summary for the case of R (on the application of AAA and others) (Respondents/Cross Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent) Case ID: 2023/0093