THE Court of Appeal is set to hear challenges over the UK Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in April, a senior judge has said.
Two judges at the High Court dismissed a series of legal bids against the Home Office’s policy in December after hearings in September and October.
Lord Justice Lewis and Justice Swift previously gave the go-ahead to several individual asylum seekers and the charity Asylum Aid to appeal against their decision.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes rejects idea her leadership would see SNP 'shift right'
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 from being returned to a country where they were at risk of persecution, and whether the scheme is “systemically unfair”.
At a preliminary hearing on Monday, Lord Justice Underhill said the Court of Appeal hearing is currently due to begin on April 25 and is set to last three days.
He said: “A number of individual asylum seekers brought claims last year challenging the decision of the Home Secretary to transfer them to Rwanda and some interested organisations also brought claims.
“In December last year, the High Court dismissed all those claims. The claimants can only appeal to this court, that is to say, the Court of Appeal, if either the High Court or Court of Appeal gives permission.”
On Monday, lawyers for some of the asylum seekers made bids for permission to widen the scope of their challenge against the High Court’s decision, with Lord Justice Underhill expected to give a ruling on these bids at a later date.
The hearing comes as the Government is expected to set out plans on Tuesday set to make asylum claims from those who travel to the UK on small boats inadmissible, with the migrants removed to a third country and banned from returning or claiming citizenship.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak mocked for Twitter QR code bungle
Details about how the policy will be implemented are scarce, and critics have warned Prime Minister Rishi Sunak he was putting forward “unworkable” plans which would leave thousands of migrants in limbo.
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.
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 as a whole.
However, they did rule in favour of eight asylum seekers, finding the Government had acted wrongly in their individual cases.
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 here