It's mixed news for the government. The High Court has also ruled that the cases of eight individual asylum seekers - who were due to be sent to Rwanda earlier this year - will have to be reconsidered.

That's despite the court deciding that the government's Rwanda plan itself is legal.

The Home Office has won a legal challenge against its policy to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The decision has just been announced by judges in the High Court in London.

Stay with us as we bring you more updates.

Lucy Fleming
BBC News

Image source, Getty Images

Visitors to Rwanda are often blown away to find a country where things seem to work efficiently.

It is neat and tidy with lush green views - and the wi-fi is good in the capital, Kigali.

Everyone tends to pay their taxes; services are reliable; the roads are safe - the government calls it "one of the world's safest nations".

Take the pandemic for example. Rwanda did not hesitate to take coronavirus by the horns: lockdowns were implemented quickly and enforced strictly. Today more than 60% of the population is vaccinated - something the British Medical Journal calls a feat "in a continent that is a Covid-19 vaccine desert".

But underlying this compliance and Kigali's landscaped flower beds is a collective fear.

Walk into a bar and try to start up a controversial debate, and you will be shut down - and there is every likelihood your behaviour will be reported to the authorities.

Those deemed a real threat will be dealt with harshly.

Read more here.

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

The enormous legal battle over Rwanda started as soon as the policy was announced in April.

But whatever the outcome today, this is far from over, because whoever loses is almost certainly going to try to appeal.

There are two elements to this battle.

The first is whether or not the government, in principle, has the power to send anyone to Rwanda at all to have their claim dealt with there.

All the government has to show is that the power exists somewhere in legislation - and that choosing Rwanda is a reasonable and rational thing for a minister to have done.

The second part of the case involves claims from individuals who would have been put on the first flight back in June.

One possible outcome is that the government wins on the principle of the law - meaning that a flight could be lawful - but loses in relation to individual claimants.

That would mean that those people would not be subject to removal to Rwanda to have their claims processed there. But it wouldn't stop another fight from being prepared.

Whatever the result today, the key question is whether the loser gets the case into the Court of Appeal, and from there the Supreme Court - and even, further down the road, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

A representative of one of the groups that's challenged the government's Rwanda plan says she's praying for an end to the "huge stress" that asylum seekers and their families are feeling.

Charlotte Khan, project manager for the Rwanda team at Care4Calais, says the asylum seekers are nervous and have been waiting for a long time to know "if they're going to be safe".

Campaigners say Rwanda is not a safe destination.

Care4Calais has been fighting the Home Office in court alongside individual asylum seekers, the PCS union - which represents more than 80% of UK Border Force staff - and migration charities Detention Action and Asylum Aid.

We're expecting a ruling at 10:30 GMT from the High Court in London on whether the UK government’s plan to deport some migrants and asylum seekers to Rwanda is legal.

A win for the government wouldn’t necessarily mean flights can take off immediately.

Whatever the outcome, analysts expect the losing side would ask for the case to be heard by the Court of Appeal - something that would further delay the government’s plans.

There is also an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), stopping deportations while legal action is taking place in the UK.

The relevant European Convention on Human Rights treaty has nothing to do with the EU, so the UK remains part of it despite Brexit.

So whatever happens today, this clash could continue in the courts for a while.

The five-year trial would see some asylum seekers who are deemed to have arrived "illegally" in the UK sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket, to claim asylum there.

They may be granted refugee status to stay in Rwanda.

If not, they can apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in a "safe third country".

The government says the plan will deter people arriving in the UK through "illegal, dangerous or unnecessary methods", such as on small boats which cross the English Channel.

But the numbers crossing have not fallen since the policy was announced on 14 April.

More than 40,000 people have already used this route to come to the UK this year, the highest figure since records began.

Image source, .

Good morning and welcome to our live page.

The UK High Court is set to rule whether the government's policy to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda is legal.

The government's plans would see some asylum seekers who arrive in the UK sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket, to claim asylum there.

However, the plans are being challenged in court.

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

They argue that the scheme breaks human rights laws.

Stick with us as we bring you the latest throughout the day.