Two High Court judges who dismissed a series of legal challenges against the government’s planned deportations to Rwanda showed “excessive deference” to the Home Office and the guarantees it had received from the Rwandan government, the Court of Appeal has heard.
In December, Lord Justice Lewis and Mr. Justice Swift ruled the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda if they had crossed the English Channel was lawful but gave the charity Asylum Aid the right challenge their decision in a higher court.
On Tuesday, at the start of a four-day hearing in the Court of Appeal, Raza Husain, KC said there were “serious evidential gaps and deficiencies” that had not been properly examined by the High Court judges.
More than 5,500 illegal immigrants have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel this year and the government says the policy of deporting to Rwanda would be a powerful deterrent.
Several individuals from Iran, Iraq, and Syria are aiming to overturn the December ruling and prove the Rwanda scheme is “systemically unfair.”
Husain said Rwanda was a “highly autocratic repressive state,” which “imprisons, tortures, and murders those it considers to be its opponents” and was therefore not considered a safe place to send the immigrants, many of whom claim to have undergone traumatic political persecution in their home countries.
In written submissions, Husain said the Rwandan authorities had offered assurances the immigrants would not be at risk of torture or inhuman treatment but it was up to the High Court to decide if these “provide a sufficient guarantee to protect relocated asylum seekers.”
But Husain said: “The court showed excessive deference to the Home Office’s own assessment of those assurances, by proceeding on the basis that it should not ‘go behind’ that assessment without ‘compelling evidence to the contrary.’”
“By adopting this approach, the court failed to scrutinise the Home Office’s view in the manner required,” he added.
Husain said material provided by the Rwandan authorities “lacked credibility, consisting of blanket denials and clear contradictions. It was partisan.”
“All these features should have been, but were not, considered by the court in assessing the evidence,” he added.
In his own written submissions Lord Pannick, KC, for the Home Office, said Rwanda had “indicated a clear willingness to cooperate with international monitoring mechanisms.”
He said the government’s assessment of the solidity of the Rwandan assurances came from officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and was “based on experience of bilateral relations extending over almost 25 years.”
“It provided a clear and compelling set of reasons why the UK government is confident the Rwandan authorities will comply with the assurances. These are matters falling squarely within the institutional competence of the UK government,” added Pannick.
New Migration Bill Could Leave Britain ‘in Breach’
The Court of Appeal hearing comes as the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the Illegal Migration Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, risked breaching Britain’s international obligations to protect human rights and exposing people to serious harm.The legislation will be debated during the report stage in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
The bill would change the law to remove the right to claim asylum from people who arrive in the UK illegally.
In a statement, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said it remained “seriously concerned that the Bill risks placing the UK in breach of its international legal obligations to protect human rights and exposing people to serious harm.”
The statement added, “Provisions providing for the detention of children and pregnant women and removing protections for victims of trafficking and modern slavery are particularly worrying.”
It went on to say: “Effective, rights-compliant action is needed to ensure that more lives are not lost on dangerous Channel crossings. We welcome the government’s commitment to increase safe, regular routes to the UK for those in need of asylum and recommend these are brought forward alongside the Bill.”
The children’s charity Barnardo’s and the Refugee Council have said the bill could lead to nearly 15,000 lone immigrant children being detained over the next three years.
The estimate was based on there being the same number of Channel crossings as in 2022, when 5,242 asylum applications where made on behalf of unaccompanied children.
