Courts rules government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful

The government's plans to send asylum seekers who arrive in the UK to Rwanda has been ruled unlawful.

The decision has been welcomed by the people and charities who challenged the plans which were first announced last year.

In December, the High Court dismissed a number of of legal challenges to the government's plans, however individual asylum seekers were able to appeal the court's decision.

Ten people from countries including Syria, Iraq and Albania, who arrived in the UK in small boats, alongside the charity Asylum Aid, argued the policy was unlawful.

The charity said the ruling is a vindication (proof that someone or something is right) for rule of law and basic fairness.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he "fundamentally disagrees" with the Court of Appeal's ruling.

Why does the government want to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?

Asylum seekers rights campaigners protested outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London

One of the reasons the government wants to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is to discourage people from coming to the UK in small boats.

However, many groups, charities and even politicians have criticised the plans and they've been described as immoral.

In the hearing on Thursday, two of the three judges in the Court of Appeal found that Rwanda was not a "safe country" to send asylum seekers to.

On what basis was the decision made?

Chief Justice Lord Burnett announced the court's decision

Under the government's original plans, asylum seekers who arrive in the UK would be interviewed here before being sent to Rwanda.

After arriving in the East African country, they'd be given somewhere to live and support.

The recent court decision on whether Rwanda could be considered a safe third country for asylum seekers was partly based on whether there is a risk asylum seekers sent from the UK could be forced to go back to the country they were originally fleeing from.

Although the High Court had previously backed the government's plans, that decision was looked at again by three judges in the Court of Appeal.

The two judges who voted against the UK government's Rwanda policies said they couldn't guarantee asylum seekers sent to Rwanda wouldn't be wrongly returned to countries "where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment".

They said sending asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful "unless and until the deficiencies in [the government's] asylum processes are corrected".

What has the government said?

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: "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...

"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."

He says the government will be seeking permission to appeal the decision.

What else has been said about the decision?

Many campaign groups have criticised the government's plans

Rwanda has expressed its disagreement with the recent court ruling.

"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," said Yolande Makolo who is a spokesperson for the government of Rwanda.

"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."

Asylum Aid's charity director Alison Pickup was in support of the decision.

"We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has upheld the argument that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers," she said.

Labour MP Yvette Cooper says the plan to stop small boat crossings is "completely unravelling", while politician for the Liberal Democrats Alistair Carmichael said the policy would have done nothing to stop "dangerous Channel crossings".