LONDON – London’s High Court on Monday ruled in favor of the government’s highly controversial policy of deporting asylum seekers arriving in Britain by boat to Rwanda, but also said eight specific deportation cases should be reconsidered.
The policy, which is designed to discourage those crossing the English Channel in small boats from making the journey, comes as some Western countries are taking tougher stances against accepting refugees.
Human rights defenders say the policy violates international law and will not deter those who venture the perilous journey. An appeal against the ruling is likely.
Under an agreement with Rwanda, Britain is paying more than £120 million, or about $147 million, to fund opportunities for those sent to the small African country, including education and training in job skills and languages. Those granted asylum in Rwanda would not be able to return to Britain.
The policy has already faced a number of complications and setbacks since it was introduced in April by Priti Patel, then the Home Secretary.
The initial announcement sparked alarm among asylum seekers, was denounced by many opposition lawmakers and sparked deep concern among international rights groups.
In June, a small number of people who had arrived in Britain by boat were told they would be sent to Rwanda. But the orders were challenged and the flight was eventually grounded. The plan was further confused when a charter airline pulled out, but the government vowed to continue.
It is still unclear exactly how the government will implement its plan. Asylum seekers, many of whom fled war zones and then made perilous journeys to reach Britain, say the ambiguity is an additional burden that weighs heavily on them.
The court’s ruling comes shortly after Britain and France signed a new agreement to halt the growing number of small boats carrying migrants across the busy waterway between them.
According to preliminary figures from the Ministry of Defence, a total of more than 40,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats this year.
The subject of border crossings has remained a focal point of the ruling Conservative Party’s messaging on immigration, even as it endured a tumultuous year that saw three prime ministers in quick succession.
Suella Braverman, the interior minister, said in October that her “dream” would be to have a flight of asylum seekers leave for Rwanda before Christmas.
The Interior Ministry has maintained in multiple statements that Rwanda is a “safe and secure country with a strong track record of supporting asylum seekers” and that it would “continue to vigorously defend the partnership in the courts”.
But human rights groups have repeatedly expressed concern about Rwanda’s human rights record, even as it positions itself as a partner for Western countries. Lewis Mudge, Human Rights Watch’s director for Central Africa, said the judicial process had made it “abundantly clear” that the UK Home Office and Foreign Office were both fully aware of Rwanda’s “abysmal record on of rights”. By turning a blind eye to evidence of extrajudicial killings, torture, political repression and more, Britain is encouraging Rwandan authorities to continue the abuses unabated, he said.
“The choice to enter into an asylum partnership with a government that prides itself on the killings and renditions of political opponents abroad, some of whom had refugee status at the time, shows just how far the UK is willing to go to support its own evade responsibilities. to asylum seekers,” added Mr. Mudge please.
And they were highly critical of the UK government’s use of vicious messaging around border crossings, which make up a fraction of the number of people arriving in the country.
The case against the government was brought by the charity organization Asylum Aid and is one of many to challenge the legality of the policy.
At a September hearing in another case brought by aid groups, individuals and a union representing border guards, the Supreme Court heard evidence that the government’s own advisers had warned against introducing the plan over fears it was likely to violate with international law.
Emma Stevenson, the deputy general manager of Choose Love, a charity based in Britain that provides aid to refugees, said the organization funded the Asylum Aid case because she believed government policies violated human rights.
“For someone to arrive in the UK and then be threatened to be sent to Rwanda without any sort of proper follow-up or support, it just feels very inhumane,” Ms Stevenson said in an interview before the court’s ruling was announced.
She said the British government’s messages were particularly dangerous and she feared it was exacerbating a climate of intolerance.
“It’s a really concerning problem that I think is exacerbating polarization,” Ms Stevenson said. “We need to get together and find solutions together, because it’s not impossible to solve.”
Stephen Castle contributed reporting from London, and Abdi Latif Dahir from Nairobi, Kenya.