When the Rwanda policy was announced in April 2022, a poll immediately afterwards by Savanta found that just under half of the public supported it - compared with 26% who opposed it.

Ten days later, the same polling company found support had slipped a bit, to 41%, while 28% were against it.

New data from this week suggests that support has, if anything, increased.

This YouGov poll, external from yesterday found 28% strongly supported the plan, with 20% "tending to support" it.

Some 24% strongly opposed while 11% "tended to oppose". The remaining 18% said they did not know.

Image source, .

Watch Lord Reed, president of the Supreme Court, deliver his judgement.

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

Image source, PA Media

Rishi Sunak has just released a statement conceding that "this was not the outcome we wanted". He says the government is still "completely committed to stopping the boats".

He adds that the Supreme Court has "confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful" and this "confirms the government's clear view from the outset".

This is a striking passage.

Could he be suggesting that the government might consider establishing a similar scheme but with a different country in Rwanda’s place?

We may find out more this afternoon.

James Cleverly, the new home secretary, will make a statement in the House of Commons. And the prime minister will host a press conference at Downing Street at 16:45.

It's going to be busy political afternoon. The prime minister will hold a press conference in Downing Street at 16:45.

We've been told that the Home Secretary James Cleverly will also make a statement in the House of Commons after 12:30, following Prime Minister's Questions.

Rishi Sunak has put out a statement on the Rwanda ruling, saying the government will consider what steps to take next. The PM notes that the Supreme Court ruling says the "principle" of sending migrants to a third country is "lawful".

"We have seen today’s judgment and will now consider next steps," the statement reads.

"This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats.

"Crucially, the Supreme Court – like the Court of Appeal and the High Court before it – has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the Government’s clear view from the outset.

"Illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so.

"Because when people know that if they come here illegally, they won’t get to stay then they will stop coming altogether, and we will stop the boats."

A serious blow to the governmentpublished at 10:46 Greenwich Mean Time 15 November 2023

10:46 GMT 15 November 2023

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

As he delivered his judgment Lord Reed, the president of the Supreme Court, stressed that their decision was based entirely on "the evidence and the legal principles".

The court, he said, "is not concerned with the political debate" around the policy.

But the political implications of what the court has done are massive and unavoidable.

This is a serious blow to the government. Its flagship policy to "stop the boats" - one of Rishi Sunak's five pledges for 2023 - has been struck down.

And the prime minister will now have to make a rapid decision about how to proceed.

And what timing, coming just two days after Suella Braverman was sacked as home secretary, and less than 24 hours after Braverman publicly lambasted Sunak’s approach to illegal immigration.

Image source, Reuters

The question of what the government does next has the potential to divide the Conservative Party still further.

Some will want Sunak to look again at human rights laws. Others may want him to ditch the policy and prioritise returns deals, such as the one with Albania, as a way of confronting small boat crossings.

Perhaps there is a middle ground where the government can attempt tweaks to the policy to clear the legal bar, though at first glance the court’s ruling did not seem to hold much hope for that approach.

Many Conservative MPs will see what Sunak and James Cleverly, Braverman’s replacement as home secretary, choose to do as a clear test of their instincts.

If they believe they have failed that test, Sunak can expect more challenges from his right.

Image source, Getty Images

Minutes after that ruling, the Rwanda government issued this statement, saying it "takes issue" with being defined as a territory that is not a safe third country.

"This is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system," the statement reads.

"However, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country for asylum seekers and refugees, in terms of refoulement. Rwanda and the UK have been working together to ensure the integration of relocated asylum seekers into Rwandan society.

"Rwanda is committed to its international obligations, and we have been recognized by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.

"Throughout this legal process we’ve been busy continuing to deliver progress for Rwandans, and working together with international partners to solve some of the biggest challenges that Africa and the wider the world faces.

"We take our humanitarian responsibilities seriously, and will continue to live up to them."

Some reaction now from charity Oxfam.

Katy Chakrabortty, head of policy and advocacy says it's a "great relief for many" - calling it an inhumane scheme.

"It sought to punish rather than protect those fleeing conflict and persecution," she says.

She repeats calls for the government to open more safe and legal routes for asylum seekers.

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

Lord Reed, the court's president, said that there were substantial grounds to believe that genuine refugees sent to the country could be at risk of being returned to countries from which they have fled - where they could be subject to inhumane treatment.

In a unanimous decision, the five top justices said the Court of Appeal had been right to conclude in June that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was safe.

The judgement does not ban sending migrants to another country - but it leaves the £140m Rwanda scheme in tatters - and it's not clear which other nations are prepared to do a similar deal with the UK.

The government had argued that Rwanda had given clear and trustworthy diplomatic assurances that anyone sent there from the UK would be treated fairly and humanely.

But in a key intervention in the case, the UN's refugee agency said Rwanda's asylum system was deeply unfair - and officials could send migrants back to home countries where they had previously been persecuted or tortured.

Image source, PA Media

Here is a bit more information – the final part of the verdict shared by Lord Reed:

"The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries].

"In the light of the evidence which I have summaries, the Court of Appeal concluded that there were such grounds. We are unanimously of the view that they were entitled to reach that conclusion. Indeed, having been taken through the evidence ourselves, we agree with their conclusion.

"We accept the home secretary's submission that the Rwandan government entered into the agreement in good faith, and that the capacity of the Rwandan system to produce accurate and fair decisions can and will be built up.

"Nevertheless, asking ourselves whether there were substantial grounds for believing that a real risk of refoulement existed at the relevant time, we have concluded that there were.

"The changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be delivered in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place now.

"The home secretary's appeal is therefore dismissed."

Dominic Casciani
Reporting from the Supreme Court

Lord Reed rules that there were substantial grounds to believe that genuine refugees sent to the country could be at risk of being returned to countries from which they have fled.

The home secretary's appealed is therefore dismissed, Lord Reed says.

The British government's plan to deport migrants to Rwanda is unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18.

"Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled."

This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says.

Lord Reed points out Rwanda's 100% rate of rejection of asylum claims from countries in known conflict zones - such as Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan - although UK authorities find that such claims are usually founded.

He also mentions Rwanda's "apparent misunderstanding" of its obligations under the Refugee Convention.

Rwanda has a poor human rights record, Lord Reed says.

Police here have had to warn claimants here of threats to kill them.

There are also concerns about media and political freedom in Rwanda, he adds. This evidence raises questions as to its compliance with international obligations.

When this case came before the High Court it failed to give proper consideration to evidence from the UN's refugee agency, the UNHCR. That was a mistake, says Lord Reed.

The Court of Appeal was right to overturn the High Court’s decision, he says, and to consider the evidence again.

Lord Reed continues saying a country can only qualify as a safe third country if it does not subject refugees to refoulement (meaning sending them back to their home country).

If there are grounds to believe that asylum seekers are at risk of refoulement then they cannot be sent to Rwanda, says Lord Reed.

The principle of not sending refugees back to their home countries, if they would be subject to a real risk abuse, is embedded in various British laws, says Lord Reed.

The question is whether this Rwanda policy breaches those laws, as well as human rights laws.

In his opening remarks, Lord Reed says: "There is a legal rule that refugees must not be returned to their country of origin if their lives would be threatened in that country."

The judge has now started delivering the verdict on the Rwanda plan.