By Ben Kerrigan-
The Supreme Court, has declared the UK government’s Rwanda asylum policy unlawful. The controversial plan, intended to deter illegal small boat crossings, involved deporting asylum seekers to east Africa and imposing a ban on their return.
The court’s decision stems from concerns that the Rwandan government might send individuals back to the very country they had fled, thereby breaching human rights laws.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision, following an appeal by the government, upholds the Court of Appeal’s ruling in June, which deemed the policy unlawful.
The crux of the legal challenge lies in the principle of “non-refoulement,” a foundational concept under both UK and international human rights law.
This principle asserts that individuals seeking asylum should not be returned to their country of origin if such a return would expose them to harm.
The government’s argument, centered around the necessity to deter small boat crossings, faced scrutiny as the Supreme Court raised concerns about the potential risk individuals could face upon deportation to Rwanda.
The ruling highlights a failure to conduct a proper assessment of the safety conditions in Rwanda, putting the UK government’s deportation plan in direct conflict with established human rights principles.
The court’s decision does not categorically prohibit sending migrants to another country, but it significantly undermines the proposed £140 million Rwanda scheme.
The five Supreme Court justices emphasized “substantial grounds” to believe that individuals deported to Rwanda might subsequently face unsafe conditions, with doubts raised about Rwanda’s practical ability to fulfill assurances made in “good faith.”
The ruling emphasized the deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum system and questioned its ability to enact necessary changes promptly.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond the specific case, casting a spotlight on the ethical considerations and legal obligations governing asylum policies. Aman rights standards.