Seeing as we just brought you the reaction of Boris Johnson, let's take a more detailed look at the Rwanda policy's brief but troubled history.

We have to rewind several months to April, when Johnson was prime minister and Priti Patel was home secretary.

The Home Office had, just weeks before, said that hundreds of people were making the perilous journey across the Channel to reach the UK.

Johnson said the new scheme - a pilot - to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda would "save countless lives" from human trafficking.

Meanwhile Patel, who travelled to the Rwandan capital Kigali to sign the deal, said it was a "global first" and that it would "change the way we collectively tackle illegal migration".

But human rights charities and refugee organisations immediately slammed it as cruel.

Fast forward to June, and the first flight due to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda was cancelled minutes before take-off after a late intervention from the European Court of Human Rights. This led to fresh challenges in the UK courts.

Patel was "disappointed" but promised: "Preparation for the next flight begins now."

Here we are, in December, with new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pledging to "stop the boats" - a reference to policies aimed at preventing dangerous migrant journeys on small vessels across the English Channel.

This morning's High Court judgement states that the policy to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful - but that the individual cases of eight asylum seekers must be reconsidered.

The former prime minister - whose government planned the Rwanda scheme - has tweeted his support for the High Court ruling that the plan is lawful.

Read more on how he launched the policy back in April.

What else have charities been saying in response to this morning's High Court judgement?

"The Rwanda deal should be abandoned in its entirety," says Steve Valdez-Symonds, the refugee and migrant rights director for Amnesty International UK.

He says Amnesty remains "gravely concerned" that the government's plan "profoundly undermines international refugee law".

Meanwhile, Christina Marriott, the British Red Cross director of policy, says the "offshoring of human beings" should play no part in the UK's asylum system.

"It will do little to prevent people from risking their lives to reach safety," she adds.

Image source, Getty Images

We're continuing to bring you reaction after the High Court ruled that the government's plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda was lawful - though the cases of eight individuals must be reconsidered.

Dover's Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke says the court has come to its decision after hearing "extensive legal arguments" on both sides.

She urges "left-wing organisations" to stop using "endless appeals to overturn democracy and waste taxpayers' money".

Legal challenges to the Rwanda scheme were brought by migrant charities, individual asylum seekers and the PCS union, which represents most Border Force staff.

An appeal on today's court's ruling is expected.

Image source, Getty Images

The Liberal Democrats have reiterated their stance on the Rwanda scheme, calling it "immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers" - regardless of its legality.

The party's home affairs spokesperson Alastair Carmichael says the plan will fail to stop Channel crossings and instead empower criminal gangs.

Carmichael accuses the Conservatives of betraying the UK's "proud tradition of providing sanctuary to refugees". He urges the government to "tackle the smugglers and traffickers" by establishing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers.

The Home Office says a number of safe and legal routes are indeed available.

However, some routes are only available to people from specific countries - and other asylum routes only accept a limited number of refugees from other parts of the world

Nick Eardley
Chief political correspondent

I’ve just been at the daily briefing for political journalists in Downing Street.

The government has welcomed the High Court's ruling. It says it's fully committed to defending the “partnership” with Rwanda.

It’s pretty clear the government is preparing for further appeals in the courts – as some campaigners have already hinted at.

Because of that, the PM’s official spokesman would not give a timeframe on when flights to Rwanda might actually happen.

He told journalists: “We want to go as quickly as possible”.

Charities Care4Calais and Detention Action were two of the organisations that challenged the government's Rwanda scheme, arguing that it was unlawful.

They've expressed their disappointment after the High Court ruled that the plan itself was illegal - and say they'll consider an appeal.

Detention Action has vowed to "fight on" against a "brutal and harmful" policy.

Care4Calais commented: "It is both appalling and grotesque that our government is basing policies that should protect the lives of vulnerable people on misinformation and misdirection."

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

You cannot underestimate how important it is for the Home Secretary Suella Braverman and her predecessor Priti Patel - as well as for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak - to have won today at the High Court.

Because winning today in their minds makes it easier for this policy to ultimately come about.

Now, I've got to be frank. We're going to have layers of appeals after today, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court, which could take some time.

But the fact is the High Court - two judges, including one Appeal Court judge - have said that the government does have the legal powers to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

If you're just joining us, here's a round up of the key moments from this morning's events:

• The High Court has ruled the UK government's plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful
• The court ruled the scheme did not breach the UN's Refugee Convention or human rights laws
• But it added that eight individuals who were due to be deported on the first Rwanda flight needed to have their cases reconsidered
• Government insiders are happy they've won on the lawfulness question
• The Rwandan government has hailed the ruling as a positive step
• After the ruling, Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she was "committed" to making the plan work
• Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper called the plan "unworkable, unethical, [and] extortionately expensive"

• An appeal is expected from losing side - which is made up of migrant charities, individual asylum seekers and a union representing most Border Force staff
• The court is scheduled to make a decision on whether to allow an appeal on 16 January 2023
• Migrant groups and opposition parties have expressed disappointment at the ruling, and vowed to continue challenging the scheme

Image source, PA

Former home secretary Priti Patel - the architect of the Rwanda scheme - has welcomed the High Court's ruling.

She says ministers "must now press ahead" with implementing the government's plan with the resources she put in place.

In April this year, Patel personally approved the plans after some of her officials voiced concerns over value for money.

Patel says no single policy will stop the Channel crossings. But, she adds, "this important policy will save lives, help break the business model of the criminal gangs and prevent asylum abuse".

Image source, PA Media

In the last few minutes, Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been reacting to the High Court's verdict.

Referring to the Rwanda scheme as "groundbreaking", she repeats assurances made by the government for months that it will "disrupt the business model of people smuggling gangs".

She goes on:

Braverman controversially said at this year's Conservative Party conference that it was her "dream" to see the first plane taking asylum seekers to Rwanda on the front page of a newspaper.

Image source, Getty Images

The question of Rwanda's safety was just one of the issues being considered by the High Court.

The UK government insists Rwanda is a "secure country, with a track record of supporting asylum seekers".

It says any asylum seekers sent there would be "provided with suitable accommodation and support".

But charities, campaign groups and lawyers representing asylum seekers say Rwanda is not a safe destination.

They argue that the government's scheme breaks human rights laws.

During court proceedings, they said that Rwanda was an "authoritarian state with extreme levels of surveillance", and that it "tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents".

Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, expresses disappointment at the High Court's decision, saying this will "damage the UK's reputation as a country that values human rights".

Solomon adds that the scheme is "wrong in principle and unworkable in practice" and would lead to "huge distress" to refugees "including young people who are becoming extremely anxious and in some cases self-harming."

More reaction from campaigners is coming in.

Josie Naughton, of migrant charity Choose Love, said the High Court's decision would "tear apart families, prolong persecution and put victims of torture and trauma in danger once again".

She said the decision was at odds with the UK's international commitments, insisting campaigners would continue to fight for the "human right to seek asylum".

During the case, campaigners argued that Rwanda was not a safe destination for asylum seekers.

Sonya Sceats, head of the Freedom from Torture charity, said she was concerned that the High Court's decision failed to recognise the "serious risks" the government scheme presented for torture survivors.

Image source, .

The shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper has called the Rwanda deportation scheme a "damaging distraction".

She says the government should instead focus on sorting out the asylum system and on taking urgent action against the criminal gangs organising dangerous Channel crossings.

Cooper also describes the government's scheme as "unworkable, unethical, extortionately expensive".

The High Court today ruled the scheme was lawful, but said the government must reconsider the cases of eight asylum seekers who were due to be deported to Rwanda.

A spokeswoman says the Rwandan government welcomes this morning's UK High Court decision - and "stands ready to offer asylum seekers and migrants safety and the opportunity to build a new life in Rwanda".

She adds: "This is a positive step in our quest to contribute innovative, long-term solutions to the global migration crisis."

Nick Eardley
Chief political correspondent

The government is adamant that the Rwanda policy will act as a deterrent to people crossing the Channel on small boats.

The hope is that the UK may be a less attractive option if people may be sent to Rwanda for their cases to be processed.

The fact the overall policy has been judged lawful is an important moment for the government. Many thought it would never get off the ground (and there are still hurdles).

Government insiders are happy they have won on the substantive issue of the lawfulness of the policy. We’ll get an official response from No 10 at the daily lobby briefing at 11:30 GMT.

This of course won’t be the end of the debate.

Some believe the policy is cruel and that the government needs to make it easier to claim asylum without people taking risks getting to the UK.

But the government has made tackling the issue of small boats a key test - and it will not want to back down.

Initial reaction is coming in to the High Court to that ruling.

Green MP Caroline Lucas calls the judgement "deeply disappointing".

In a tweet, external, she labels the government's plans to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda "inhumane, morally bankrupt and unworkable". Judges disagreed, though, and said the scheme was lawful.

Lucas adds: "Here's to the appeal."

The High Court has delayed its decision on whether to allow an appeal until January.

Image source, Getty Images

We have quotes from the High Court.

Lord Justice Lewis says: "We have concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined there."

He says evidence has been presented to the court that shows the arrangements between the UK and Rwanda are intended to ensure asylum claims are "properly determined" there.

The judge adds that the scheme does not breach the UN's Refugee Convention or human rights laws.

But the cases of eight individual asylum seekers hadn't been properly considered by the home secretary when they were earmarked for the first Rwanda flight, he says.

"Those decisions will be set aside and referred back to the home secretary to be considered afresh."

A High Court judge says a decision on whether to allow an appeal has been adjourned until 16 January 2023.

The court has ruled that the government's plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda is legal. It has also ruled that the cases of eight asylum seekers who were due to be deported must be reconsidered.

It was widely expected that whoever lost today's case would appeal, meaning that planes would not be imminently taking off to transport any asylum seekers to Rwanda.