More to come from the House of Commons shortly, where MPs have been questioning Home Secretary Suella Braverman and her ministerial colleagues.

Before that, let's examine the context of today's High Court ruling, which comes just days after at least four people died in the English Channel when a boat carrying more than 40 migrants started sinking.

In the early hours of Wednesday, rescue teams were sent to help a small boat which had got into difficulties off the coast of Dungeness, 30 miles (48km) west of Dover.

Record numbers of people - more than 40,000 - have crossed the Channel in small vessels this year.

This is the highest number since these figures began to be collected in 2018.

The government has announced a series of new measures to try to tackle the issue.

Read more here.

Image source, .

Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, says that the Rwanda scheme can be a "significant deterrent" to people arriving illegally, making sure they "never find a route to life here in the UK".

He says this will help the government focus resources on those who "really need to be here" through targeted resettlement schemes.

More on the numbers of people making boat crossings and their asylum applications here.

Back in the Commons - a Labour MP criticises the home secretary for her previous comments about the Rwanda policy, when Suella Braverman said it was her "dream" to see a flight carrying migrants take off for East Africa before Christmas.

Labour MP Mark Hendrick says the remarks have "all the sensitivity and compassion of Jeremy Clarkson" - a reference to a controversial column he wrote over the weekend that criticised the Duchess of Sussex.

Hitting back, Braverman says: "I won't apologise for telling the truth about the scale of the challenge we are facing when it comes to illegal migration. And I will also reiterate my absolute commitment to delivering upon the ground-breaking agreement that we have with Rwanda."

She describes the plan as compassionate and pragmatic.

Let's step out of the Commons for a moment to watch Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's response to today's High Court ruling.

Speaking earlier, he said he had "always maintained" that the Rwanda policy was lawful and was pleased the High Court had confirmed that.

He explained he wanted to make sure people arriving illegally were returned to their home country or a "safe alternative like Rwanda".

Watch the full statement in the video below.

The government's Nationality and Borders Act has made it illegal for migrants to knowingly enter the UK without a visa or special permission.

But the UK has an international legal obligation not to criminally penalise anyone who seeks protection as a refugee.

Image source, UK Parliament

Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper highlights what she describes as a "collapse" of prosecutions for people-smugglers, with the number of convictions falling to three per month in the first half of this year, from 12 a month in 2020.

She says smuggler gangs have "proliferated" and asks why the home secretary has "totally failed to take action against the criminal gangs".

In response, Home Secretary Suella Braverman accuses Labour of failing to take action on the issue.

Despite "trying to sound tough on illegal migration", she says the opposition party has voted against new offences and tougher sentences for people-smugglers. She also says Labour would scrap the Rwanda scheme, which she says will be a deterrent to people crossing the Channel.

But Cooper hits back, pointing out the Conservatives have been in government for 12 years. "The home secretary says that the asylum system is broken, well who broke it?" she asks.

Image source, House of Commons

Image source, House of Commons

Alison Thewliss, the SNP's home affairs spokesperson, asks a question about the UK's backlog of asylum claims and plans to speed things up.

Jenrick responds by saying the government will hire more decision-makers and simplify guidance. He accuses Scottish towns and cities of failing to accept their fair share of asylum seekers.

Earlier, Thewliss called the Rwanda policy "immoral" regardless of its legality. She accused the Conservatives of making "scapegoats" of those fleeing war and oppression in a "disgusting attempt to cover up their own domestic policy failings".

Labour's shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock criticises the government's approach to tackling illegal immigration.

He claims just 21 out of 18,000 inadmissible people have been returned so far. He says "sending 300 asylum seekers to Rwanda won't even touch the size of that 18,000".

Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick says next year the government will bring forward "further and even tougher legislation".

"And we will make sure that we secure the borders; we control migration," he adds.

After questions on other topics, Braverman and her colleagues are pressed on what steps the government is taking to reduce the backlog of asylum cases.

Home Office Minister Robert Jenrick says the backlog is "a symptom of the problem" - that far too many people are crossing the Channel illegally.

He says the government is determined to tackle the issue with "tough measures", including the "world-leading Rwanda partnership".

There are currently 117,000 outstanding asylum claims and last week the prime minister pledged to clear the backlog of initial decisions relating to claims made up to the end of June, which consists of 92,601 claims.

Braverman has so far been questioned on policing and fraud.

We're listening out for any new information on the Rwanda asylum plan following this morning's High Court judgement.

We'll keep you posted right here.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman is speaking in the House of Commons.

Her appearance comes after the High Court ruled that the government's plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda on a one-way ticket was lawful.

Stay on this page as we let you know what she says - you can also watch proceedings by clicking on the play button at the top of this page.

Image source, EPA

As we've been mentioning - we expect to hear from Home Secretary Suella Braverman in the Commons shortly. But first, here's a quick look back at what's been going on today:

• The High Court has ruled that the UK government's Rwanda deportation scheme is lawful
• However, judges also said that eight individuals who were due to be deported on the first Rwanda flight needed to have their cases reconsidered
• An appeal over the scheme's overall legality is expected from losing side - which is made up of migrant charities, individual asylum seekers and a union representing most Border Force staff
• UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he was "pleased" about the ruling and Braverman reiterated that the government was "committed" to the plan
• Campaigners and opposition politicians have again criticised the policy. Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper has called it "unworkable, unethical, [and] extortionately expensive"

Ahead of Home Secretary Suella Braverman facing questions in the House of Commons at 14:30 GMT, let's take a look at what the government's Rwanda policy actually is.

During the five-year trial, the government plans to send some asylum seekers who arrive in the UK to the East African country on a one-way ticket, to claim asylum there.

Ministers believe it will deter people arriving in the UK through "illegal, dangerous or unnecessary methods" - such as on small boats which cross the English Channel.

The court's judgement today means the plan has been recognised as legal, but it does not mean flights can go ahead straight away.

• Read our updated explainer article here

Rwanda says it can process 1,000 asylum seekers during the trial period, but that it has capacity for more. Under the deal, Rwanda can also ask the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees, external.

It's been widely reported that the scheme has already cost the UK £140m, with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer accusing the government of wasting the money.

Campaigners argue that Rwanda is not a safe destination for asylum seekers.

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

One of the key reasons why the government has won today is that it convinced the High Court that its deal with Rwanda passed a very important legal test.

Under the law, ministerial decisions and actions can be overturned by the court if they can be shown to be irrational, or to have ignored important evidence.

The government argues it has a detailed set of agreements and arrangements with Rwanda for managing the arrival and potential settlement of migrants. Critics say those are worthless - but the judges said the documents were in fact "specific and detailed".

Taken together with the cash on offer from the UK, the judges said ministers had acted reasonably in concluding that Rwanda was under a "clear and significant incentive" to hold up its end of the bargain.

There's more reaction to the High Court ruling now, with the PCS union general secretary saying he's "disappointed" by the outcome.

The PCS represents more than 80% of UK Border Force staff, and it is one of the bodies that challenged the Home Office over the Rwanda policy.

"We're disappointed the court hasn't found in our favour in respect of the general legality of the policy, but we're pleased that eight refugees have had their decisions quashed and will not be deported to Rwanda at this stage," Mark Serwotka says.

The High Court ruled that ministers must reconsider the claims of eight asylum seekers that the government tried to deport to Rwanda earlier this year.

"Regardless of the legality of the policy, it remains morally reprehensible and utterly inhumane and we call on the Home Office to recognise that and abandon it."

He adds that the only way to "protect human life and prevent people from drowning in the Channel is to give them safe passage", and insists the Rwanda policy isn't the "deterrent" that the government claims it is.

Image source, Getty Images

The prime minister is joining others in his party in welcoming the High Court's ruling that the Rwanda policy is lawful.

"We've always maintained that our Rwanda policy is lawful, and I'm pleased that was confirmed today," he says.

Rishi Sunak says it isn't going to be "easy" or achievable overnight to stop migrant boats arriving on British shores, but he's confident he can do it.

"That's the common sense position, I think, of the vast majority of the British public. It's my position, and that's what I want to deliver as prime minister," he said.

The government has said its Rwanda policy will deter people crossing the Channel on small boats.

Image source, .

The UK government said "anyone, external entering the UK illegally", external after 1 January 2022 could be sent to Rwanda, with no limit on numbers.

Rwanda says it can process 1,000 asylum seekers during the trial period, but has capacity for more.

Under the deal, Rwanda can also ask the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees, external.

However, no asylum seeker has actually been sent to Rwanda.

The first flight was scheduled to go in June, but was cancelled after legal challenges.

The government's plan that we've been covering involves deporting some asylum seekers to Rwanda to claim asylum there instead of in the UK.

The UN Refugee Agency, external defines an asylum seeker as someone who has applied for shelter and protection in another country.

A refugee is a person who has fled conflict or persecution in their own country.

The legal rights of refugees are protected by international law. It is up to host countries to decide whether an asylum seeker is granted refugee status.

In the year to June 2022, the UK received 63,089 asylum applications, external, the highest number for nearly 20 years.

Of these, almost 16,000 people and their dependants were granted a form of protection.

We told you a short while ago that the government was thought to be preparing for further appeals against its Rwanda policy in the courts.

The latest comments from No 10 confirm that it does see this as a possibility - with a spokesman saying the government is "ready to defend against any further legal challenges".

He says that "tackling the global migration crisis requires global solutions", and that the UK's partnership with Rwanda "is an essential part of that approach".

The government has not yet given a timeframe for when flights to Rwanda might actually take off, saying it would not be fair to do so at this stage.

More campaigners are reacting to the High Court's ruling that the government's Rwanda plan is lawful.

Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, describes the court's decision as "incredibly disappointing" - and the government's plan as "disgraceful".

"It is a dark day for the rights of the most vulnerable," she says, adding that people have "a right under international law to seek asylum in the UK".

Alison Pickup, director of Asylum Aid, says the charity will be looking closely at the High Court's judgment to see if there are any grounds for an appeal.

"Meanwhile, we urge the home secretary to rethink this inhumane policy and come up with one that can give us all faith in the asylum decision-making process," Pickup says.

A decision on whether to allow an appeal has been adjourned until 16 January 2023.

Lebo Diseko
Reporting from Kigali

I had been speaking to Mohammed as the High Court in London was considering the legality of the UK government's controversial plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda.

We were standing on a patch of wasteland in Rwanda's capital Kigali. It was surrounded by trees to hide us from prying eyes.

Mohammed said life in Kigali had been difficult, but he was so scared of reprisals for speaking to a journalist that he asked me not to disclose his real name or the name of his home country, which is in Africa.

Mohammed came to Rwanda seeking asylum. He said he fled to Rwanda from Ethiopia, where he had been taking refuge until agents from his home country attempted to kidnap him.

For days we'd been trying to get an asylum seeker living in Rwanda to speak to us on the record. Time and again people agreed, and then mysteriously became unavailable, often after being visited by a "community leader".

"I've asked for asylum," Mohammed told me.

"The authorities don't say no, but everything is 'tomorrow', or 'come back next month'. It's been almost one year that they haven't given it to me."

• Read more of Mohammed's story here