THE High Court’s ruling that the Tories’ plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful is set to be challenged.
Two judges dismissed a series of cases brought against the Home Office’s policy in December, following a High Court challenge.
But at a hearing on Monday they gave the go-ahead for aspects of their ruling to be reconsidered by senior judges.
The Court of Appeal will be asked to consider a range of issues, including whether the High Court judges were wrong to find there were sufficient safeguards to prevent asylum seekers being returned to a country where they were at risk of persecution, and whether the scheme is “systemically unfair”.
READ MORE: Suella Braverman picks up Priti Patel's dregs with her grotesque Rwanda 'dream'
Lord Justice Lewis and Justice Swift granted permission to appeal to a number of individual claimants and charity Asylum Aid.
Asylum Aid, which provides legal advice to asylum seekers and refugees, will challenge parts of the December ruling related to the safety of Rwanda for migrants.
No date has been set for the hearing, and the Court of Appeal may also be asked to consider other issues which the justices refused permission to appeal against.
Clare Moseley, the founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, said that while they welcomed the leaves to appeal which were granted, they would be “discussing further appeals with our lawyers”.
“We remain committed to ensuring that no person who has suffered the horrors of war, torture and human rights abuses will be forcibly deported to Rwanda where their safety cannot be guaranteed,” Moseley said.
“The people we work with in Calais come from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Sudan that have asylum acceptance rates that are as high as 82 – 98%. They are people who have escaped from the very worst things in this world and they urgently need our help.
“The Rwanda plan won’t end small boat crossings, it won’t stop people smugglers and it won’t keep refugees safe. There is a kinder and more effective way: giving safe passage to refugees in Calais.”
READ MORE: UK Government's own website contradicts Priti Patel's claims 'Rwanda is safe'
In April last year, then-home secretary Priti Patel signed an agreement with Rwanda for it to receive migrants deemed by the UK to have arrived “illegally”, and therefore inadmissible under new immigration rules.
Several challenges were brought against the proposals, which were described at the time as a “world-first agreement” in a bid to deter migrants from crossing the Channel.
The first deportation flight – due to take off on June 14 – was then grounded amid a series of objections against individual removals and the policy as a whole.
However, at the High Court in London in December, senior judges rejected arguments that the plans were unlawful.
Lord Justice Lewis, sitting with Justice Swift, dismissed the challenges against the policy — which has already seen the UK pay Rwanda £140 million — as a whole.
However, they did rule in favour of eight asylum seekers, finding the Government had acted wrongly in their individual cases.
Following the ruling, current Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she remained “committed” to sending migrants to Rwanda as soon as possible.
The UK Government has refused to put a date on when the first flight to the Rwandan capital of Kigali could take off, recognising the threat of further legal action.
The Home Office previously said ministers “stand ready” to defend against further legal challenges to the Rwanda deportation policy.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel