Comment on this storyCommentAdd to your saved storiesSave
LONDON – Britain’s top court ruled Wednesday against the government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda – a goal sought by successive British prime ministers and closely watched by other countries hoping to outsource migration issues while upholding international human rights obligations evade.
The ruling brings some relief to asylum seekers already in the UK who have received threatening letters from the government. It is also a major embarrassment for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who has left his flagship effort to “stall the boats” in tatters ahead of what is expected to be a difficult election year.
“The Supreme Court unanimously rejects the Interior Minister’s appeal and confirms the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the Rwanda policy is unlawful,” the ruling said.
“This is because there are substantial reasons to believe that asylum seekers would be at real risk of ill-treatment as a result of being rejected [return] back to their country of origin if they were deported to Rwanda,” it continued.
Last year, more than 45,000 people crossed the English Channel from mainland Europe, often in flimsy, unseaworthy boats. These figures exacerbate the situation for the British who supported Brexit so that their country could “take back” control of its borders. Sunak has made stopping the boats a central promise, with the Rwanda deportation plan the key element.
Despite Brexit promises, net immigration to Great Britain is reaching a record high
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 was intended to prevent people who enter the UK via unofficial routes from applying for asylum here. The law requires officials to arrest and deport people to their country of birth, if possible, or to a “safe third country,” including Rwanda, where their asylum claims can be processed. Once resettled, asylum seekers would be banned from ever entering the UK again.
The plan, which sought something like Australia’s mandatory detention and relocation abroad, is more extreme than what other European governments have tried so far.
The United Nations had previously said that Britain’s policy contradicted international law and “set a worrying precedent for dismantling asylum-related obligations that other countries, including in Europe, may have followed.”
Britain wants to send migrants to Rwanda, an extreme plan that others could copy
All five judges of the UK Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that the government’s plan was unlawful. The top court agreed that they would face persecution or other inhumane treatment if returned to their home countries.
In other words, Britain’s Rwanda policy would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court ruling is expected to reignite debate in Sunak’s Conservative Party over whether Britain should withdraw in whole or in part from this human rights treaty – an agreement the country helped draft and was one of the first to ratify.
Sonia Lenegan, an immigration lawyer, said the government could decide to enact its controversial immigration law, but the court ruling would delay its entry into force “forever.” It is also possible that the government will try to renegotiate its asylum agreement with Rwanda.
Lenegan suggested that while the result was a loss for the government, it may actually be what some officials wanted. “If they won, they have to actually implement the laws they passed,” she said. “But Rwanda will have reached capacity after accepting a few hundred people. It’s hard to remove people when you don’t have a place to remove them.”
If they lose the case, she said, “they will be able to blame someone else for their inability to implement the legislation and for the boats not stopping.” They can blame the Supreme Court, they can blame the lawyers . You can blame someone other than yourself.”