A protester stands outside the Supreme Court in London on Wednesday Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP
Rishi Sunak's Rwanda plan was scrapped on Wednesday because The UK Supreme Court ruled it was unlawful.
The court's five judges unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling that the policy was unlawful because of the «real risk» that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda , will be returned to their country, where they may have faced “ill-treatment” in violation of their human rights.
Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Lord Reed said the judges were «unanimous» in their view that the Court of Appeal was «entitled» to reach that view. «Indeed, having seen the evidence ourselves, we agree with their conclusion,» he said.
It represents a major blow for the prime minister, who has made the Rwandan scheme the centerpiece of his «Stop the Boats» pledge. , deterring migrants from crossing the border further.
His Illegal Migration Act gives ministers powers to detain migrants who come to the UK illegally and deport them to or from a safe third country such as Rwanda home.
Mr Sunak said the government would now consider its next move.
“This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all contingencies and remain fully committed to stopping the boats,” he said.
>“It is important to note that the Supreme Court — like the Court of Appeal and the High Court before it — has confirmed that the principle of sending irregular migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the government's clear view from the very beginning.»
The verdict came the day after former home secretary Suella Braverman accused Sunak of betraying the nation by abandoning the secret deal and ignoring the rulings of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In a strongly worded departure letter, Ms Braverman said the Prime Minister had sidestepped «difficult decisions» on how to «stop the boats». She said a Supreme Court loss would mean a «lost» year, and to act and leave the government «back to square one.»
«Worse than that, your magical thinking is the belief that you can succeed.» this, without prejudice to polite opinion, means that you have failed to prepare any credible “Plan B,” she wrote.
However, as part of Plan B, ministers are expected to draw up a new treaty with Rwanda that would pave the way for the deportation of asylum seekers.
It is one of a series of emergency measures being considered after judges upheld a Court of Appeal ruling that the policy was unlawful due to the risk that Asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will be returned to their country and face persecution in violation of their human rights.
Other options include banning illegal migrants from using the Human Rights Act to avoid refoulement, passing legislation to designate Rwanda as a safe country, and expanding the list of “safe” countries. Mr Sunak will also face calls from 60 Conservative MPs for Britain to leave the ECHR.
Flights to Rwanda have been suspended since June last year, when the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg issued “Rule 39,” blocking the deportation of asylum seekers until the legality of the policy was determined by UK courts.
“Bad” situation human rights record in Rwanda
In delivering the Supreme Court verdict, Lord Reed cited three key reasons identified by the Court of Appeal, including Rwanda's «poor» human rights record, which included «extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture.”
Second, there was the UN Refugee Agency's evidence to UNHCR that there were «serious and systematic» defects in Rwandan asylum procedures and institutions.
These included concerns about a lack of legal representation for asylum seekers, the risk that judges and lawyers will not act independently of the government in politically sensitive cases, and a completely untested right of appeal to the High Court.
The Supreme Court judges also found a «surprisingly high» rate of rejection of asylum claims from countries in known conflict zones such as Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, of which asylum seekers were expelled from the country. Great Britain may well come.
Third, they said that Rwanda had recently failed to comply with a clear commitment in the agreement to accept asylum seekers from Israel that the migrants would not be returned to their home countries.
Summarizing their ruling, the Chief Justices concluded concluded that «the changes and capacity building needed to address this risk could be implemented in the future, but were not demonstrated when the legality of Rwanda's policy came to be considered in these proceedings.»
In its statement, the Rwandan government said: “We do not agree with the decision that Rwanda is not a safe third country »
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “This is a victory for the rights of men, women and children who simply want to be safe. The Government should focus on creating a functioning asylum system that allows people seeking safety in the UK to have a fair hearing on our soil and provides safe routes so they do not have to make dangerous journeys.»
Свежие комментарии