THE UK Government has lodged a bid to take a legal battle over its Rwanda deportation policy to the UK’s highest court.
Ministers are seeking permission to bring a Supreme Court challenge over a ruling that plans to send asylum seekers to the east African nation are unlawful.
In a majority decision last week, Court of Appeal judges overturned an earlier High Court ruling which found Rwanda could be considered a “safe third country”.
READ MORE: Two anti-monarchy protesters charged by police following King’s ‘mini coronation’
The Government has since filed its bid to challenge the Court of Appeal judgement, a court spokesperson said on Thursday.
In last week’s ruling, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill concluded “deficiencies” in the asylum system in Rwanda mean there is a “real risk” asylum seekers could be returned to their home country and face persecution or other inhumane treatment when they may have a good claim for asylum.
Campaigners welcomed the appeal decision, with charity Asylum Aid - which brought the challenge alongside several asylum seekers - describing the ruling as a “vindication of the importance of the Rule of Law and basic fairness when fundamental rights are at stake”.
The judgment marked the latest setback in Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s bid to “stop the boats” – one of his flagship pledges.
Sunak has since declined to say when he will fulfil his promise of stopping small boat crossings on the Channel but denied it is on hold while the Rwanda policy is grounded by court challenges.
Facing questions from senior MPs on Tuesday, Sunak also denied he has no plan B if the Supreme Court does not overturn the ruling blocking the forceful removal of asylum seekers to Kigali.
READ MORE: Hardeep Singh Kohli gets Fringe venue ban over abuse claims
Sunak has also previously refused to guarantee the first flight to Rwanda would take off by the end of the year amid the ongoing legal battle.
Following the Court of Appeal ruling, Home Secretary Suella Braverman hit out at “phoney humanitarianism” hindering efforts to stop Channel crossings and claimed the system was “rigged against the British people”.
But Labour said the decision showed the Government’s efforts were “completely unravelling”.
The Rwandan Government said it took “issue” with the Court of Appeal’s decision and insisted it was “one of the safest countries in the world”.
More than 50,000 migrants have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel since the Government signed the multimillion-pound Rwanda deal over a year ago.
Under Supreme Court rules, Home Office lawyers need to first ask the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the Rwanda ruling, and if refused they are then given the chance to ask the Supreme Court directly.
If the Government is given the go-ahead to bring a Supreme Court appeal, lawyers for both sides will appear before up to five justices at the court in Westminster, with a further decision in writing to follow.
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