Asylum seekers appeal to overturn lawfully sending migrants to Rwanda

Asylum seekers launch appeal to overturn High Court’s decision that plans to send migrants to ‘authoritarian one-party’ Rwanda are lawful

• Suella Braverman wants to send thousands more than 4,000 miles away
• Migrants’ lawyers say government’s argument that Rwanda is a ‘safe’ is flawed

Britain’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda is unlawful because the African country is an ‘authoritarian one-party state’ which has been known to murder its opponents, lawyers for a group of asylum seekers told the Court of Appeal yesterday.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman wants to send thousands of migrants more than 4,000 miles away to Rwanda as part of the £140m deal agreed last year.

The first planned flight to Rwanda last June was blocked by a last-minute ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

In December, the High Court ruled the policy was lawful, but that decision is being challenged by asylum seekers from countries including Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran and Vietnam along with some human rights organisations.

Their lawyers say the government’s argument that Rwanda is a ‘safe third country’ is flawed.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman wants to send thousands of migrants more than 4,000 miles away to Rwanda as part of the £140m deal agreed last year 

Raza Husain KC told the Court of Appeal at the start of a four-day hearing that Rwanda was an authoritarian one-party state that did not tolerate opposition and claimed it imprisons, tortures and murders opponents.

‘There will only be any form of deterrent effect if a third country to which asylum seekers are removed is one to which they would not wish to go’, Mr Husain said, arguing the government had failed to tread the line between deterring migrants and remaining within Britain’s human rights obligations.

However, lawyers representing the British government stressed that its deal with Rwanda is subject to an exacting set of monitoring arrangements including by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who has intervened in the appeal.

Rwanda says migrants will be treated with respect and dignity and the deal will offer them better opportunities.

In December, the High Court ruled the policy was lawful, but that decision is being challenged by asylum seekers from countries including Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran and Vietnam 

The Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett of Maldon said the issue of the safety inside Rwanda for people removed there was key to the case.

More than 45,000 migrants arrived in small boats on the English south coast in 2022, a record number, and in court documents last week, the government said it was anticipating as many as 56,000 would cross the Channel this year.

The hearing will continue for most of this week.

Meanwhile, Tory MPs urged the government to begin the Rwanda flights, adding: ‘If the appeal court decides in the government’s favour, and they are likely to, given the High Court’s decision, flights should take off as soon as possible thereafter. That’s what the public expects.’

Source: Read Full Article