The PM is now behind a lectern that reads "stop the boats" and giving his statement.

We'll bring you the top lines right here. You can watch live at the top of this page by clicking the play button.

Just joining us or need a recap? Here's what's happened so far:

• The Supreme Court has ruled that the government's plan to send migrants to Rwanda is unlawful
• In response, Rishi Sunak has said the government is working on a new treaty with the country, and he is "prepared to change our laws" if necessary.
• The ruling has sparked an angry response from some Tories. Lee Anderson - deputy chairman of the party - said the government should "put planes in the air" anyway, and Boris Johnson - prime minister when the plan was announced last year - has urged the government to change the law to allow it to be enacted
• Yvette Cooper, Labour's shadow home secretary, said the Rwanda policy has "completely failed", and urged the government to "stop its unworkable gimmicks"
• The judgement was welcomed by the UN's refugee agency, which said it had "deep concern about the 'externalisation' of asylum obligations"

• Meanwhile, the Rwandan government has said it "takes issue" with being defined, in the ruling, as a not safe third country. In a statement it says "we take our humanitarian responsibilities seriously, and will continue to live up to them"

Sunak is due to host a press conference at Downing Street at around 16:45 - stay with us for all the latest updates.

Image source, PA Media

Suella Braverman, the former home secretary and staunch proponent of the Rwanda plan, has posted on X, external, formerly Twitter, with her take on the Supreme Court's decision.

Braverman - who was sacked from her cabinet job on Monday - says today's judgement "is no surprise" and that many people close to the process had predicted it. She also says that there is "no reason" to criticise the judges, who applied the law as it currently stands.

The next avenue for the government, Braveman argues, is to "introduce emergency legislation" that would block off the European Court of Human Rights, the Human Rights Act and other routes of legal challenge:

Leila Nathoo
Political correspondent

It's understood the new treaty the government is trying to finalise with Rwanda would involve an agreement by Rwanda to not remove anyone who has been relocated from the UK - even if their asylum claim is rejected.

So there would essentially be a new, separate, legal status created in Rwanda for a failed asylum seeker sent from the UK.

The government's position is that this means no one would end up being sent back to their country of origin, where they could be at risk of harm.

The Home Office also doesn't foresee that anyone would end up being returned to the UK, although the treaty is still being finalised.

Home Office sources would not be drawn on whether this would end up being further tested in the courts or what, if any, extra costs there would be to the UK as a result of the new proposed arrangement.

Rishi Sunak has posted on X, external, formerly Twitter, saying that earlier today, following the Supreme Court's judgement, he spoke to the president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame.

"We reiterated our firm commitment to making our migration partnership work. While disappointed with the outcome, we'll take the necessary steps to ensure we stop the boats," Sunak said.

Was UK able to transfer failed asylum seekers to EU before Brexit?published at 15:37 Greenwich Mean Time 15 November 2023

15:37 GMT 15 November 2023

Reacting to the ruling on the government’s Rwanda asylum scheme, Labour MP Nick Thomas-Symonds told BBC Radio 5 Live: "The government has never succeeded in actually getting a successor to what was known as the Dublin III agreement which meant that people here with no right to be here could then be removed."

He’s referring to the EU scheme - Dublin III - allowing member states to return failed asylum seekers to other EU countries, taking into consideration factors such as family reunion and irregular entry.

The scheme ended in the UK after Brexit - in January 2021.

But Home Office data, external shows the numbers involved were pretty small and actually more people ended up coming to the UK under this scheme than were removed in the final six years it was operating.

From 2015 to end of 2020, 3,961 people arrived in the UK and only 1,763 were removed under the scheme.

Image source, Reuters

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson says that, if required, the government should change the law to deem Rwanda a "safe country" in order to allow its Rwanda plan to be enacted.

He made the comments in a MailOnline article, external back in June, which he has just re-shared in a post on X, external, urging the government to "do it now".

Johnson was prime minister when the policy was announced back in April last year.

In the article, he calls for action to "get Rwanda done".

He adds that quitting the European Convention on Human Rights - as some Conservative MPs have suggested - would "take time", "cause divisions" and "not solve the immediate problem raised by this case".

Instead, he says "the government has the power, under Schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004, to ask ­Parliament to deem Rwanda a safe country" and this should be done "immediately".

Here's a reminder of what exactly the government was proposing. The five-year trial - announced back in April 2022 - would have seen some asylum seekers sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket.

Under the plan - which included £120m funding for Rwanda - asylum seekers might have been granted refugee status to stay in Rwanda. If not, they could have applied to settle there on other grounds, or sought asylum in another "safe third country".

No asylum seeker has actually been sent to Rwanda. The first flight was scheduled to go in June 2022, but was cancelled after legal challenges.

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

More than 45,700 people used this route to come to the UK in 2022, the highest figure since records began.

Image source, PA Media

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said he hopes the government will "reflect and reconsider its approach" to its asylum policy, following today's judgement.

The Most Reverend Justin Welby - who's the most senior bishop in the Church of England - said the court ruling "leaves our response to desperate people fleeing conflict and persecution in a state of limbo".

Welby has been highly critical of the Rwanda plan before - which he says is the UK outsourcing its responsibilities regarding refugees.

Last year he called it ungodly, but Rwanda's own Anglican archbishop later disagreed, saying he did not think it was immoral.

In his statement today, Welby called on the government "to design an asylum system fit for the growing pressures of the coming century - one that is based on fairness, compassion and the God-given dignity of every human being".

The UNHCR - the UN's refugee agency - has "welcomed" today's judgement by the Supreme Court.

In a statement, the agency says it has long conveyed "deep concern about the 'externalisation' of asylum obligations and the serious risks it poses for refugees".

It adds that it encourages the formation of "expanded safe and legal pathways" to help refugees.

The UNHCR gave evidence as part of the Supreme Court's proceedings, in what has been referred to as a key element in the case.

You can read more about that here.

Earlier we heard the PM say the government was in talks with Rwanda on a new treaty. His spokesman's now fleshed out what happens next:

• He said Parliament would be presented with new plans "in the coming days"
• The new text would provide the necessary "reassurances" after the government's initial plan was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court
• The spokesman acknowledged it could take more than 40 sitting days for Parliament to ratify its new plans, if these faced opposition. He said he couldn't predict whether there would be "future legal challenges"
• The spokesman refused to answer questions on how long the government had been in touch with Rwanda on a revised treaty
• Downing Street has also confirmed that Rishi Sunak has been in touch today with his Rwandan counterpart, President Paul Kagame, and they vowed to continue working together

Image source, Reuters

Would a new treaty with Rwanda change things?published at 14:05 Greenwich Mean Time 15 November 2023

14:05 GMT 15 November 2023

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

It's very difficult at this stage to see how.

The Supreme Court's judgement does not doubt that the UK or Rwandan governments worked carefully in trying to come up with a scheme that would work.

"There is no dispute that the government of Rwanda entered into the MEDP in good faith," said the court.

"We accept that Rwanda has a strong reputational incentive to ensure that the [plan] MEDP is adhered to. The financial arrangement may provide a further incentive.

"Nevertheless, intentions and aspirations do not necessarily correspond to reality: the question is whether they are achievable in practice."

The plan for an additional treaty suggests the Rwanda government will promise never to send a genuine refugee back to where they had fled.

But the problem is not the quality of a solemn promise - but the reality of what would happen on the ground.

So until Rwanda can convince all that its asylum system is fair and just - and independent of the machinations of its much criticised President Paul Kagame, how could the scheme be made to work?

Image source, Reuters

Former Home Secretary Priti Patel has urged the government to "take every necessary step and measure" to make the Rwanda policy work.

She was speaking in the Commons after current Home Secretary James Cleverly's address to the chamber.

Patel - home secretary when the policy was announced in 2022 - added the deal with Rwanda is "integral" to "stopping the evil trade of people smuggling".

In response, Cleverly says "we will break the people smuggling gangs" and that the government is "already working to address the issues that were raised by judges in lower courts".

Home Secretary James Cleverly has been quizzed about those comments we just reported from Lee Anderson.

Specifically, he was asked if he would distance himself from the Tory deputy chair's suggestion that the government should "ignore the laws" and "put planes in the air now".

Cleverly told the Commons: "This country prides itself on being a law-abiding country."

He added: "To hear the government's position on things, [you should] listen to the statements from government ministers."

Image source, PA Media

As we reported earlier, Lee Anderson, the Tory Party deputy chairman, says the government should "ignore the laws" and send migrants who cross the Channel to Rwanda on the same day they arrive in the UK.

Describing the Supreme Court judgement as a "dark day for the British people", Anderson says ministers should "just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda".

"I think the British people have been very patient, I've been very patient, and now they're demanding action. And this has sort of forced our hand a little bit now," he says.

"It's time for the government to show real leadership and send them back, same day."

Mark Easton
Home editor

One of the asylum seekers involved in today’s case against the government tells me he feels “relieved” by the decision of the Supreme Court.

The man in his twenties – whose name and nationality we are not allowed to report – arrived in the UK from a war-torn Middle Eastern country 18 months ago.

He said: "I feel relieved. The situation has changed and I hope the next stage is going to be more positive, things are going to get better."

Asked what he would like to say to the judges who made the decision today, he said: "I thank them from the bottom of my heart. It’s the right decision to make, and they treated us with humanity."

Newscast, the BBC's news podcast, is about to record a live episode on the Rwanda Supreme Court judgement.

You can watch that episode live using the large play button at the top of the page.

A bad day for the government's immigration policypublished at 13:10 Greenwich Mean Time 15 November 2023

13:10 GMT 15 November 2023

Mark Easton
Home editor

Image source, Reuters

This was not just a bad day for the government in losing the case, but also a bad day for the government in illustrating the potentially terrible consequences of its immigration policy.

The Illegal Migration Act no longer makes sense without somewhere to send those arriving in small boats. We await clarity on what happens to that.

The implicit conclusion from today’s judgement must be that the Rwanda plan could well have meant genuine refugees who'd asked for asylum in the UK ending up back where they came from being tortured and killed.

Even after the UK signed its deal with the Rwandan government, the justices say the East African state was sending asylum seekers to the countries from which they fled.

Throughout and despite that evidence, the prime minister and other ministers were insisting Rwanda was safe.

• Just after 10:00 GMT, the Supreme Court ruled the government's plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful
• Lord Reed, president of the court, said there was a "real risk" asylum seekers could be sent from Rwanda back to the countries they fled from

• At midday, Rishi Sunak told the House of Commons that - in effect - the government wasn't giving up on the overall plan
• He said the government was already in talks with Rwanda on a new treaty, and would change UK law if needed
• Labour's Keir Starmer called the policy a "ridiculous, pathetic spectacle" - and charities have urged the government to drop the Rwanda plan altogether

Image source, House of Commons

Responding to Cleverly's statement, Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper begins by welcoming the new home secretary to the job - but says "what a mess he has inherited".

The court's conclusions are "damning", she says - exposing the "complete failure" of the PM's flagship Rwanda policy and a "complete failure of the prime minister's judgement in making it the central part" of his immigration plan.

She says there is no serious plan to tackle either the dangerous boat crossings "that all of us want to see end" - or the "chaos" in the asylum system.

And she criticises the government for spending £140m of taxpayers' money on this plan - "money we can't get back now".