The British government has beaten back a legal challenge to its irregular migrant policy as the High Court in London ruled that plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda while their status is decided are lawful in broad principle.
In a 139-page ruling, Lord Justice Lewis said the controversial policy, first introduced under then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, was "consistent with the refugee convention.” Although judges dismissed the challenges against the policy as a whole, they found that the government had failed to consider individual cases of eight asylum seekers.
A decision on whether to allow an appeal has been put off until January.
Pushing back against criticisms, Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she wants to press on with the deportation policy “as soon as possible,” adding that the government stands ready to defend the policy “against any further legal challenge.”
Priti Patel, the former home secretary who negotiated the deal with Rwanda, said in a statement on Twitter that the court judgment vindicates her “world-leading” policy.
However, the policy has been under fire from many human rights groups and opposition parties. Speaking to Anadolu Agency, Karen Doyle – the spokesperson of Here to Stay UK, a charity campaigning against Rwanda deportations – accused the British government of “using racism and anti-immigrant policies to prop up failing government.”
Doyle, who has been in touch with some of the asylum seekers whose names were on the list for the first deportation flight, says asylum applications for her contacts had been approved by the Home Office. For NGOs, one fear is that the current government may withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights to avoid further legal challenges to its policy, as domestically UK courts are not expected to call off the policy.
“When it comes to major government policy issues, the judges have been unwilling to act against them, like in the Brexit case,” Doyle said.
The Refugee Council has said it is “very disappointed” by the decision. “If the government moves ahead with these harmful plans, it would damage the UK’s reputation as a country that values human rights, and undermine our commitment to provide safety to those fleeing conflict and oppression, as enshrined in the 1951 refugee convention.”
The plan was initially challenged with lawyers on behalf of asylum seekers arguing that the government had ignored evidence that the Central African country violates human rights.
The Rwanda plan would see asylum seekers who crossed the English Channel in small boats deported to Rwanda, where their claims would be processed. It was suspended amid a slew of legal challenges.
