Image source, PA

A charity has hailed the Court of Appeal challenge as a "victory for reason and compassion".

Freedom from Torture, which supports victims and campaigns on the issue, says: "We are delighted that the appeal verdict has affirmed what the caring people of this country already knew: the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, it flies in the face of the laws of this country."

The charity was an intervener in the High Court case - meaning the group was allowed to make submissions but was not actually an appellant.

• Campaigners and asylum seekers have won a Court of Appeal challenge against the UK government's planned Rwanda deportation scheme
• The Court of Appeal overturns a High Court ruling that said in December the east African nation could be considered a "safe third country"

• The decision was announced by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett during a short hearing in London
• The decision of the majority of judges was that, due to "deficiencies" in the Rwandan asylum system there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries, where they were fleeing from
• Until those deficiencies are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful, the court ruled
• The appellants, charity Asylum Aid and ten asylum seekers, argued there were substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk that any persons sent to Rwanda will be removed to their home country

We've just had this from Yolande Makolo, spokesperson for the government of Rwanda.

She says: “While this is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees.

"Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world and we have been recognised by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.

“We make a significant contribution to dealing with the impacts of the global migration crisis. Rwandans know what it means to be forced to flee home, and to make a new life in a new country.

"As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans.

"Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this."

Here are more of Lord Burnett's remarks:

"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.

"Finally, the Court of Appeal makes clear that its decision implies no view whatever about the political merits or otherwise of the Rwanda policy.

"Those are entirely a matter for the government, on which the court has nothing to say.

"The court's concern is only whether the policy complies with the law as laid down by Parliament."

Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, told the court that two of the three judges concluded that deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda meant there was a "real risk" asylum seekers could be returned to their home country - and then face persecution or other inhumane treatment there.

He said the two judges found that: "In that sense Rwanda is not a 'safe third country'."

We'll bring you more from the judgement soon.

The decision of the High Court is reversed - and the removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful until changes are made to the asylum system there, the Court of Appeal rules.

Callum May
At the Court of Appeal

The government has lost. But it's a split decision.

Two judges - the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Underhill - have decided the policy is not lawful.

But one judge, the Lord Chief Justice, agreed with the High Court's decision that Rwanda is a safe third country.

The court rules the appeal is allowed - that is, the government has lost.

We'll bring you the ruling as soon as we have it - remember, you can press play above to watch it live.

Image source, Getty Images

Earlier this week, the Home Office published an economic impact assessment , externalof the government’s Illegal Migration Bill - including the Rwanda plan.

It estimated that sending a migrant to a "safe country" such as Rwanda could cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.

The sum is the difference between the gross cost of relocating an individual - put at £169,000 - and the £106,000 spent on housing support if a migrant remains in the UK.

The total of £169,000 includes a payment to that country of around £105,000 per person, as well as £22,000 for flights and escorting the individual.

But the government argues the policy would also have a deterrent effect - which would lead to savings, including a reduction in the asylum seeker hotel bill.

However, the Home Office said it was "uncertain" what level of deterrence impact the policy would have because it was "novel and untested".

Read more here.

Callum May
At the Court of Appeal

Court 71 - one of the larger, newer courtrooms at the Royal Courts of Justice - is full to capacity.

Barristers are standing in their rows, and journalists are sitting on the floor.

Callum May
At the Court of Appeal

Lawyers for both sides do not know the result of the case in advance.

Sometimes, barristers and solicitors are allowed to inspect a draft judgment before it is formally handed down.

That hasn't happened in this case. This morning, the judges are expected to read a short summary of their decision before the full document is handed down -- which means it is published.

A 'novel' policy - but government thinks it will stop the boatspublished at 09:45 British Summer Time 29 June 2023

09:45 BST 29 June 2023

Mark Easton
Home editor

The government thinks the threat of a one-way ticket to Rwanda is the answer to small boats.

Ministers argue the threat of being removed to the east African nation will deter migrants from crossing the Channel and entering Britain illegally. But the policy is on hold until the end of court action by opponents of the scheme.

The High Court ruled in December that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful and consistent with Britain’s obligations under the Refugee Convention and Human Rights Act, although individual cases must be properly considered.

Today, three of the most senior appeal court judges in England and Wales will give their conclusions.

The policy of sending asylum seekers to a third country is described by the government’s own impact assessment as “novel and untested” with “little or no evidence” of a deterrent effect.

But the Home Office believes the deal with Rwanda will prove a lawful and effective tool in undermining the business model of people smugglers.

• April 2022: UK government announces plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, to deter people crossing in small boats from France
• June 2022: The first flight carrying asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda is cancelled minutes before take-off after intervention from the European Court of Human Rights (a non-EU body)
• December 2022: The High Court rules that the scheme is lawful - but it says the cases of eight asylum seekers on board the June flight had not been “properly considered”
• January 2023: Migrants facing potential removal to Rwanda win permission to challenge the policy in the Court of Appeal
• April 2023: Appeal hearing takes place
• 10:00 BST today: Court of Appeal judges due to deliver ruling

Rwanda is a land-locked east African country, around a nine-hour flight from the UK.

Paul Kagame became president in 2000 and has in effect run the country since 1994.

An eagerly waited decision - but it won't end herepublished at 09:20 British Summer Time 29 June 2023

09:20 BST 29 June 2023

Mark Easton
Home editor

Today’s judgement will be eagerly awaited by Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who has made no secret of her enthusiasm to start flights to Rwanda.

But it is likely to be just another stop on the long judicial road the government’s controversial policy is destined to take.

I understand that time has already been pencilled in for the matter to be considered by the UK Supreme Court, probably in October.

It is assumed that whatever happens in the Court of Appeal, the losing side will want the matter to be tested in the most senior court in the land.

The appeal judges may even decide to send it to the Supreme Court justices themselves.

It is a near certainty that today will not be the end of the Rwanda case.

Although there are passionate views on both sides of the argument, the role of the court is only to ensure the law is properly understood and observed, and that rights guaranteed by Parliament are respected.

Good morning and thanks for joining us as we await a ruling from the Court of Appeal on whether the government’s plan to send asylum seekers on a one-way ticket to Rwanda is lawful.

The government thinks the plan will deter aslyum seekers from crossing the Channel in small boats, and will save taxpayers money in the long-run.

But opponents argue that Rwanda is not a safe destination for asylum seekers - and that the scheme breaks human rights laws.

Back in December, the High Court ruled it was legal - but several individual asylum seekers and the charity Asylum Aid are challenging that decision.

It’s unlikely today’s judgement will end the legal back and forth. And even if the government wins - don't expect to see planes taking off for Rwanda any time soon.

We’re expecting the judgement around 10am - you’ll be able to watch it on this page. Stay with us for live updates, reaction and analysis.