A government plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful, the High Court has ruled.

Lord Justice Lewis said the controversial policy, introduced under Boris Johnson, was “consistent with the refugee convention”.

However, he said the home secretary should look at people’s “particular circumstances” before deporting them to the central African country.

Politics live: Health secretary says he is keen to talk to unions

The senior judge ruled the first people who were set to be sent to Rwanda had not had their circumstances “properly considered” by the person then in post, Priti Patel.

And as a result, their cases would be referred back to the current home secretary, Suella Braverman, “for her to consider afresh”.

Ms Braverman – who will give a statement on the judgment to the Commons later, welcomed the decision, saying the “ground-breaking” agreement with Rwanda would “provide individuals relocated with support to build new lives there, while disrupting the business model of people smuggling gangs putting lives at risk through dangerous and illegal small boat crossings”.

And Ms Patel also praised the ruling, adding: “No single policy will stop the Channel crossings, but this important policy will save lives, help break the business model of the criminal gangs & prevent asylum abuse.”

However, charities and campaign groups vowed to challenge the decision to ensure “people are treated with dignity and respect”.

The government announced its Rwanda policy back in April, which would see some asylum seekers who had reached the UK via small boat Channel crossings deported to the country to have their cases processed.

Ms Patel said it would help deter people from making the dangerous journey, but human rights campaigners, charities and opposition parties condemned the plan as inhumane.

The first flight was set to take off in June with four people on board, but was halted after a number of legal challenges and the European Court of Human Rights ruling the plan carried “a real risk of irreversible harm”.

However, both Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss insisted they would push ahead with the policy when they took the keys to Number 10.

‘Particular circumstances’

Eight people brought their cases to the High Court to fight against the decision to send them to Rwanda, giving the UK’s most senior judges the opportunity to rule on the overall policy, as well as the individuals.

Their lawyers argued the plans were unlawful and that Rwanda “tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”.

But representatives from the Home Office argued the agreement between the UK and the country provided assurances that everyone sent there would have a “safe and effective” refugee status determination procedure.

In a summary of his ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Lewis said: “The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom.

“On the evidence before this court, the government has made arrangements with the government of Rwanda which are intended to ensure that the asylum claims of people relocated to Rwanda are properly determined in Rwanda.”

However, he added: “The home secretary must consider properly the circumstances of each individual claimant. The home secretary must decide if there is anything about each person’s particular circumstances which means that his asylum claim should be determined in the United Kingdom or whether there are other reasons why he should not be relocated to Rwanda.

“The home secretary has not properly considered the circumstances of the eight individual claimants whose cases we have considered.

“For that reason, the decisions in those cases will be set aside and their cases will be referred back to the home secretary for her to consider afresh.”

The chief executive of the Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, said he was “disappointed” by the overall ruling, saying it would “damage the UK’s reputation as a country that values human rights”.

He added: “Treating people who are in search of safety like human cargo and shipping them off to another country is a cruel policy that will cause great human suffering.

“The scheme is wrong in principle and unworkable in practice.”

The chief executive of migrant charity Choose Love, Josie Naughton, also said the decision by the court “flies in the face of international commitments and accountability”.

She added it would “tear apart families, prolong persecution and put victims of torture and trauma in danger once again”.

‘Safety and opportunity’

Labour’s shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, did not argue against the decision, but called the Rwanda scheme “unworkable, unethical [and] extortionately expensive”, adding it was “a damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking to go after the criminal gangs and sort out the asylum system”.

The Liberal Democrats echoed the sentiment, with MP Alistair Carmichael saying it was “immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers”.

He added: “It will do nothing to stop dangerous Channel crossings or combat people smuggling and human trafficking; instead it will give criminal gangs more power and profits.”

But it was welcomed by the Rwandan government, with spokeswoman Yolande Makolo saying: “We welcome this decision and stand ready to offer asylum seekers and migrants safety and the opportunity to build a new life in Rwanda.

“This is a positive step in our quest to contribute innovative, long-term solutions to the global migration crisis.”

Lord Justice Lewis said a further hearing would take place in mid-January to handle the consequences of the judgment, including costs and applications to go to the Court of Appeal.