Plans to send asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda where their applications can be considered are lawful – but the eight claimants involved in today’s High Court judgment will be referred back to the Home Secretary because their applications were not properly dealt with.
Lord Justice Lewis this morning read out a summary of the decision to a packed courtroom in the Royal Courts of Justice.
The court heard that today's judgment comes as a result of challenges by eight claimants – made up of both individuals and organisations – to the home secretary’s decisions concerning sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The individual claimaints in the proceedings ‘travelled in small boats from France to England and claimed asylum on their arrival’ in the UK, the court was told. The claimants argued that arrangements made by the home secretary to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda are unlawful and that their circumstances were not considered properly.
Lewis said: ‘The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom.
‘On the evidence before this court, the government has made arrangements with the government of Rwanda which are intended to ensure that the asylum claims of people relocated to Rwanda are properly determined in Rwanda.
‘In those circumstances, the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the refugee convention and with the statutory and other legal obligations on the government including the obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998.
‘However, the home secretary must consider properly the circumstances of each individual claimant. The home secretary must decide if there is anything about each person’s particular circumstances which means that his asylum claim should be determined in the United Kingdom or whether there are other reasons he should not be relocated to Rwanda.
‘The home secretary has not properly considered the circumstances of the eight individual claimants whose cases we have considered. For this reason, the decision in those cases will be set aside and their cases will be referred back to the home secretary for her to consider afresh.’
Lewis also said that, though the government's proposal to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda had been the subject of public debate, the role of the court ‘is only to ensure that the law is properly understood and observed, and that the rights guaranteed by parliament are respected'.
The judgement criticised the length of two skeleton arguments: two of 262 pages and another reaching 63 pages. It said: ‘Each [skeleton] comfortably exceeds the maximum length permitted by Practice Direction 54A [of] 25 pages. The length of these documents has not served to clarify the way in which the various complaints are put. The documents meander and repeat themselves.
‘We have no doubt that these failings made it significantly more difficult for counsel to present their cases clearly and effectively. Overall, it has become very easy to miss the wood for the trees.’
The judge adjourned any other proceedings, including cost or appeal applications, until January.
This article is now closed for comment.
17 Readers' comments