Emily McGarvey
Live reporter

Thanks for staying with us during our live coverage of the Court of Appeal's Rwanda judgement.

To read more about the government's plans to take the Rwanda ruling to Supreme Court, click here.

And to find out more about the details of the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, look here.

Today's live page was written by Andre Rhoden-Paul, Thomas Mackintosh and Adam Durbin. The editors were Owen Amos and Emily McGarvey.

Image source, PA Media

We're ending our live coverage shortly. Here's a recap from today after a court ruling deemed plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as unlawful:

• Court of Appeal judges ruled that Rwanda could not be treated as a safe third country as asylum seekers may be sent to their home country
• The ruling was welcomed by campaigners who brought the challenge following a High Court decision in December

• Rishi Sunak said he "fundamentally disagrees" with the ruling and the government will seek to challenge the decision and take it to the Supreme Court
• Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she is "determined" to stick with the Rwanda policy and will be seeking to appeal today's ruling
• The Rwandan government insisted it was "one of the safest countries in the world" and had been recognised for its "exemplary treatment of refugees"
• But, the Lib Dems urged Braverman to "accept reality" over the Rwanda plan, while Labour said today's judgement meant one of the PM's five key pledges - to stop the boat crossings - is "completely unravelling"

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has described the government's Rwanda plan as a "headline-grabbing gimmick".

Starmer said: "The government hasn’t got a plan. It’s had one gimmick, one headline-grabbing gimmick, Rwanda, which has already cost the taxpayer £140m without anybody having gone to Rwanda.

“What the court’s judgment shows is they’ve spent that £140m of taxpayers’ money without even doing the basics to see whether the scheme was really fit for purpose.”

We've just heard more from Home Secretary Suella Braverman who says she "respectfully disagrees with the court's judgement" and describes it as "disappointing".

Speaking to a reporter at the Home Office, Braverman insists Rwanda is a safe country "which has an extensive track record of supporting 100,000 refugees".

She highlights that taxpayers are paying £6m a day in hotels for asylum seekers and the "problem is out of control".

"We need to change the system, we need to change our laws, that's how we're going to stop the boats", she adds.

The UN's refugee agency, which advised the court on matters of international refugee law during the appeal, has welcomed today's judgement and urged the UK government to "pursue other measures" instead.

In a statement, the UNHCR says it shared "longstanding and well-known concerns about the 'externalization' of asylum obligations", referring to countries outsourcing their responsibilities to people seeking refugee status to other nations.

Image source, PA Media

Tory MP Danny Kruger has expressed his "disappointment" at the Court of Appeal's ruling this morning.

"I disagree with their judgement," Kruger tells BBC Radio 4's World at One programme. "I regard the judgement of the High Court as the right one."

The MP for Devizes says the "will of Parliament" was clear, adding he believes Rwanda is a safe country.

He admits issues have been raised in today's ruling for further "corrections and improvements" which need to be made in the Rwanda system, in order to satisfy the courts.

Image source, Reuters

Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza is an opposition politician in Rwanda and someone who previously spent eight years in prison for criticising the country's history of genocide until she was pardoned in 2018.

She tells BBC Radio 4's World at One programme she is happy that two of the three judges found that Rwanda was not a "safe country", as she referenced a group of Congolese refugees living at the Kiziba Refugee Camp who were shot dead by police for protesting against their living conditions.

"Rwanda is not a freedom country," she says. "Anyone who challenges the government's policy and narrative is persecuted."

In response, Yolande Makolo, spokesperson for the government of Rwanda, says demonstrations and violence at Kiziba refugee camp in 2018 was an "isolated" incident and that lessons had been learned to avoid repetition.

She says: "Rwanda has a well-established track record of providing safety, security, and opportunity for refugees."

Image source, Getty Images

If you're just joining our live coverage of today's Court of Appeal judgement on the UK's Rwanda deportation plans, here's a recap:

• The Court of Appeal ruled government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda are unlawful
• During a short hearing this morning, judges overturned a previous High Court ruling which said the east African nation could be considered a safe country
• A majority of the judges ruled, two-to-one, "deficiencies" in Rwanda's asylum system meant asylum seekers could be returned home and face persecution, even though they may have a good claim for asylum.
• Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the government will seek permission to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court
• Charity Asylum Aid, who brought the case along with ten individual asylum seekers, said the ruling is a vindication for rule of law and basic fairness

Callum May
BBC News

The defeat of the government’s Rwanda plans puts its most recent strategy to counter illegal migration at risk, according to experts.

The Court of Appeal’s decision was based on Rwanda not being a “safe third country” for asylum seekers – but the Illegal Migration Bill compels the home secretary to remove people who arrive on small boats to a "safe third country".

Dr Peter William Walsh, a senior researcher at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford says: "The Bill currently going through Parliament is predicated on the idea that the UK will remove asylum seekers to safe third countries.

"Even with a Rwanda deal in place, it has never been clear how easy this would be.

"If there are no safe third countries accepting the UK’s asylum seekers, the core idea behind the policy can’t be implemented. In essence, all the eggs are in one basket and this basket is looking fragile."

Image source, PA Media

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has issued a statement on the High Court's ruling just now, confirming the government plans to appeal the judgement.

In a statement, she says: "The British people want to stop the boats, and so does this government.

Braverman says the Court of Appeal has been "clear that the policy of relocating asylum seekers to a safe third country for the processing of their claims is in line with the Refugee Convention".

“While we are disappointed with their ruling in relation to Rwanda’s asylum system, I will be seeking permission to appeal this.

“I remain fully committed to this policy as does the Rwandan government.”

Some more comments coming to us from Downing Street who say it will “remain committed” to its Rwanda policy and still believes it is the “right approach” despite the Court of Appeal ruling.

The prime minister's official spokesman said the government will "look carefully" at the issues raised in the judgment and agreed the policy could be toughened up to provide further "assurances" that migrants flown to the country would not be sent back home.

The PM's spokesman said: "Obviously this is a very detailed judgment and the Lord Chief Justice dissents with other judges... We need to go through that carefully and consider what if anything if is appropriate in our approach.

"Obviously some of these issues we'd want to put before the Supreme Court should we be given permission to do that. I'm not going to pre-empt that."

The Rwanda policy is not dead yetpublished at 12:42 British Summer Time 29 June 2023

12:42 BST 29 June 2023

Joe Inwood
At the court

In February the home secretary said it was her “dream” to see people on a deportation flight to Rwanda.

Well, today’s ruling was a rude awakening for Suella Braverman, as the Court of Appeal declared that this flagship government policy was unlawful.

By a majority of two to one, some of the country’s top judges ruled that Rwanda was not a “safe third country” and that there was a significant risk to anyone sent there.

So, does this mean the Rwanda policy is dead?

In short, not yet. The government has until 6 July to submit a written appeal against the ruling - something Rushi Sunak has just confirmed will happen - a move that will see the case sent to the UK Supreme Court.

What happens there is anyone’s guess. But given that the two previous courts have given conflicting verdicts, defeat for the government is not guaranteed.

That certainly seemed the opinion of charities speaking outside the court - who welcomed today’s decision, but were clearly aware their fight was not over.

The stakes are high for all sides. For the government, Suella Braverman’s dream is at risk.

For the charities bringing this case, the Rwanda policy represents their worst nightmare.

We're now hearing the first reaction from Prime Minister Rishi Sunak following the Court of Appeal's ruling.

He said: "While I respect the court I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions.

"I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries – something that the Lord Chief Justice (NB: one of the three Court of Appeal judges) agrees with.

"Rwanda is a safe country. The High Court agreed. The UNHCR have their own refugee scheme for Libyan refugees in Rwanda. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

"The policy of this government is very simple, it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen."

Image source, PA Media

Labour's Yvette Cooper says the plan to stop small boat crossings, one of Rishi Sunak's five key pledges, is "completely unravelling".

"Ministers were forced to admit this week that it will cost £169,000 to send each person to Rwanda on top of the £140m of taxpayers' money they have already spent," she says.

"The Rwanda scheme is unworkable, unethical and extortionate, a costly and damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking."

Image source, PA Media

Some more political reaction to bring you now, this time from the Lib Dems who have urged Home Secretary Suella Braverman to "accept reality" over the Rwanda plan.

Home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said the policy would have done nothing to stop "dangerous Channel crossings".

"Not only is the Conservatives' Rwanda asylum plan immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers, but the Court of Appeal has also now said it is unlawful, too," he says.

"Instead of wasting even more taxpayer money by defending this plan in the courts, the home secretary should scrap her vanity project and focus on tackling the asylum backlog created by her own government's incompetence."

Over on BBC Radio 5 Live, Nicky Campbell has been getting some mixed reaction to the government's Court of Appeal defeat.

Charlie, in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, is in favour of the court ruling - describing the Rwanda plan as a "vile, nasty, racist policy".

"We should be welcoming migrants to the UK with open arms and open borders, it’s as simple as that," he says.

However, Rob, in Cheddar, Somerset, disagrees with the ruling and believes the UK should be sending migrants who come across the Channel "straight back to France".

"What I’m hearing is basically a lot of faff," he tells Nicky. "While we were part of the EU, we were part of the immigration problem.

"Ever since Brexit, we are suffering because the EU is failing to police its own borders."

But, immigration lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie points out France takes three times as many asylum seekers as the UK.

"We’re the fifth largest economy in the world," she says. "There are over 100 million displaced people around the world."

Here's some more reaction from campaigners.

Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, says Home Secretary Suella Braverman should focus her efforts on fixing the UK's "broken and neglected" migration system - rather than an "unworkable and unethical fever dream of a policy".

"This verdict presents the government with an opportunity to change course," Yasmine says.

"Rather than treating human beings like cargo it can ship elsewhere, it should be focusing on ending the hostile environment towards refugees and asylum seekers."

The Court of Appeal ruling is a "vindication of the importance of the rule of law and basic fairness when fundamental rights are at stake", charity Asylum Aid says.

The group - along with ten individual asylum seekers - were the ones who brought the case to the Court of Appeal.

Asylum Aid's charity director Alison Pickup says: "We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has upheld the argument that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers.

"While we are disappointed that the court has held that the process can be made fair, we are pleased that it has not upheld the High Court’s judgment and has made it clear that the government needs to ensure that Home Office officials give people more time when they need it."

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, announced the Court of Appeal's decision just after 10am:

Image source, PA

Here's some early reaction from the government.

Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt, responding to a question in the House of Commons, said: "It was a mixed judgement because although what she [the questioner in the Commons] says is absolutely true in terms of their ruling on the policy, they have also confirmed that Rwanda is a safe third country.

“This is clearly a matter for the Home Office to update the House on, we respect the court’s decision and I think there will be a statement later today from the home secretary on that matter.”

On whether Rwanda is a safe country, here's a reminder of what the court ruled:, external "The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed - and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful."