Rwanda: Supreme Court has ruled on the government’s plan – everything you need to know
The government’s flagship immigration policy, known as the Rwanda plan, is hanging in the balance this morning after the highest court in the land found it to be unlawful.
But what is the scheme? Why is it so controversial? And how has it ended up in the judicial system?
The Rwanda plan was first proposed by Boris Johnson back in April 2022 as the government came under increasing pressure to tackle the growing number of small boats crossing the Channel.
The then prime minister outlined his policy that would see anyone arriving in the country illegally deported to the east African nation.
Those who successfully applied for refugee status when there would then be given the right to remain in Rwanda – not return to the UK.
But if their claim was unsuccessful, they could then be removed to their country of origin.
The deal, signed by the home secretary at the time, Priti Patel, and her Rwandan counterpart, cost the government £120m.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Boris Johnson: ‘We must defeat people smugglers’
Mr Johnson said it would help deter people from making the dangerous crossing to the UK and tackle the “barbaric trade in human misery” caused by people traffickers.
Opposition parties and charities deemed the plan “cruel and nasty”, and claimed the policy would break international human rights laws.
There were even reports that the King – then the Prince of Wales – was a critic of the scheme.
But the government pushed ahead, with the first flight to Kigali set to take off in June 2022.
Come the day, there were only seven asylum seekers on board the plane.
Numerous court cases were launched by refugee charities, as well as the Public and Commercial Services union, ahead of take-off, calling the policy “inhumane” and demanding the deportations were stopped.
Protesters also tried to stop the flight, locking themselves together with metal pipes and blockading exits of the Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre at Heathrow, where the migrants were believed to be held.
However, judges in the UK ruled the seven people could be deported, saying there had been an “assurance” from the government that if the policy was found to be unlawful at a later stage, steps would be taken to bring back any migrants.
This didn’t stop further last-minute legal challenges to prevent take-off though.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer dubbed the government’s Rwanda plan a ‘gimmick’.
In the end, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued injunctions to halt the deportations altogether, leaving the plane grounded on a Ministry of Defence runway.
The government said it would appeal against the ruling, with Tory MPs angered that a European court could overrule the decision of English judges.
But campaigners said it showed the “inhumanity” of the plan for the human rights watchdog to intervene.
In the months that followed, there was a change in government, with Liz Truss taking the keys to Number 10 and Suella Braverman heading up the Home Office.
Both women stood by the Rwanda plan and, even when Ms Truss was ousted weeks later, her successor Rishi Sunak also gave it his backing.
The ruling of the EHRC – which ensures the European Human Rights Convention is adhered to – was still fresh in the minds of Tory backbenchers, as they saw it as holding up the policy they believed would stop the boats.
And it led to a number of calls for the UK to leave the convention, though they appeared to remain in the minority.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Suella Braverman is a vocal advocate of the Rwanda policy
The plan itself headed back to the courts as campaigners tried a new tactic to stop it in its tracks, launching a judicial review on the Home Office’s assessment of Rwanda as a safe third country.
The government doubled down on its belief in the scheme – with Ms Braverman telling the Conservative Party conference it was her “dream” to see flights take off.
And come December of 2022, that dream looked closer to reality, as the High Court ruled in the favour of ministers, saying the scheme did not breach either the UN’s Refugee Convention or human rights laws, and that Rwanda was a “safe third country” for migrants to be sent to.
But the legal battle was far from over.
Campaigners were then allowed to appeal the ruling in the Court of Appeal, and the three sitting judges overturned the High Court’s decision.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett concluded Rwanda was not a safe place for people to be housed while their asylum claims were processed, adding: “The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The Court of Appeal ruled against the government
The government was outraged, with the prime minister saying he “fundamentally disagreed” with the ruling, and would do “whatever is necessary” to get the removal flights going.
The anger of Ms Braverman and her right-wing supporters also grew, with further demands to leave the ECHR, and others calling for the human rights convention to be overhauled.
The government got approval to appeal that ruling and, as a result, it was sent to the Supreme Court.
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court President Lord Rees found that the Court of Appeal had been right to overturn the original decision of the High Court.
He said the justices had unanimously concluded those sent to the country would be at “real risk” of being returned home, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not.
The full judgment said those sent to Rwanda would be at risk of re-foulement – where a refugee is returned to their country of origin where there is a substantial risk they could be subjected to torture.
The court ruling said the principle of re-foulement is not just a breach of the European Human Rights Convention, but a number of other international treaties.
Mr Sunak said ministers would now “consider next steps”.
Politics
Sir Keir Starmer says US-UK trade talks ‘well advanced’ and rejects ‘knee-jerk’ response to Donald Trump tariffs
Sir Keir Starmer has said US-UK trade talks are “well advanced” ahead of tariffs expected to be imposed by Donald Trump on the UK this week – but rejected a “knee-jerk” response.
Speaking to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby, the prime minister said the UK is “working hard on an economic deal” with the US and said “rapid progress” has been made on it ahead of tariffs expected to be imposed on Wednesday.
But, he admitted: “Look, the likelihood is there will be tariffs. Nobody welcomes that, nobody wants a trade war.
“But I have to act in the national interest and that means all options have to remain on the table.”
Politics latest: Ministers hail ‘huge’ minimum wage boost as bills rise
Sir Keir added: “We are discussing economic deals. We’re well advanced.
“These would normally take months or years, and in a matter of weeks, we’ve got well advanced in those discussions, so I think that a calm approach, a collected approach, not a knee-jerk approach, is what’s needed in the best interests of our country.”
Downing Street said on Monday the UK is expecting to be hit by new US tariffs on Wednesday – branded “liberation day” by the US president – as a deal to exempt British goods would not be reached in time.
A 25% levy on car and car parts had already been announced but the new tariffs are expected to cover all exports to the US.
Jonathan Reynolds, the business and trade secretary, earlier told Sky News he is “hopeful” the tariffs can be reversed soon.
But he warned: “The longer we don’t have a potential resolution, the more we will have to consider our own position in relation to [tariffs], precluding retaliatory tariffs.”
He added the government was taking a “calm-headed” approach in the hope a deal can be agreed but said it is only “reasonable” retaliatory tariffs are an option, echoing Sir Keir’s sentiments over the weekend.
Read more:
Why a figure of 48% is important as Trump tariffs near
Starmer and Trump discuss US-UK ‘prosperity’ deal
Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday. Pic: Reuters
Tariff announcement on Wednesday
Mr Trump has been threatening tariffs – import taxes – on countries with the biggest trade imbalances with the US.
However, over the weekend, he suggested the tariffs would hit all countries, but did not name them or reveal which industries would be targeted.
Read more: How Trump’s tariffs could affect the UK
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Everything on table over US tariffs’
Mr Trump will unveil his tariff plan on Wednesday afternoon at the first Rose Garden news conference of his second term, the White House press secretary said.
“Wednesday, it will be Liberation Day in America, as President Trump has so proudly dubbed it,” Karoline Leavitt said.
“The president will be announcing a tariff plan that will roll back the unfair trade practices that have been ripping off our country for decades. He’s doing this in the best interest of the American worker.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump’s tariffs: What can we expect?
Tariffs would cut UK economy by 1%
UK government forecaster the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said a 20 percentage point increase in tariffs on UK goods and services would cut the size of the British economy by 1% and force tax rises this autumn.
Global markets remained flat or down on Monday in anticipation of the tariffs, with the FTSE 100 stock exchange trading about 1.3% lower on Monday, closing with a 0.9% loss.
On Wall Street, the S&P 500 rose 0.6% after a volatile day which saw it down as much as 1.7% in the morning.
However, the FTSE 100 is expected to open about 0.4% higher on Tuesday, while Asian markets also steadied, with Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 broadly unchanged after a 4% slump yesterday.
Kristin Smith, CEO of the US-based Blockchain Association, will be leaving the cryptocurrency advocacy group for the recently launched Solana Policy Institute.
In an April 1 notice, the Blockchain Association (BA) said Smith would be stepping down from her role as CEO on May 16. According to the association, the soon-to-be former CEO will become president of the Solana Policy Institute on May 19.
The association’s notice did not provide an apparent reason for the move to the Solana advocacy organization nor say who would lead the group after Smith’s departure. Cointelegraph reached out to the Blockchain Association for comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication.
Blockchain Association CEO Kristin Smith’s April 1 announcement. Source: LinkedIn
Smith, who has worked at the BA since 2018 and was deputy chief of staff for former Montana Representative Denny Rehberg, will follow DeFi Education Fund CEO Miller Whitehouse-Levine, leaving his position to join the Solana Policy Institute as CEO. According to Whitehouse-Levine, the organization plans to educate US policymakers on Solana.
Related: Congress on track for stablecoin, market structure bills by August: Blockchain Association
With members from the crypto industry, including Coinbase, Ripple Labs, and Chainlink Labs, the BA has filed a lawsuit against the US Internal Revenue Service, challenging regulations requiring brokers to report crypto transactions. The group often criticized the US Securities and Exchange Commission under former chair Gary Gensler for its “regulation by enforcement” approach to crypto, resulting in steep legal fees for many companies.
Less than 48 hours after the Solana Policy Institute’s launch, it’s unclear what the group’s immediate goals may be for engaging with US lawmakers and advocating for the industry. The organization described itself as a non-partisan nonprofit group.
Magazine: Solana ‘will be a trillion-dollar asset’: Mert Mumtaz, X Hall of Flame
The most senior and long-serving civil servants could be offered a maximum of £95,000 to quit their jobs as part of a government efficiency drive.
Sky News reported last week that several government departments had started voluntary exit schemes for staff in a bid to make savings, including the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs, the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office.
The Department for Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have yet to start schemes but it is expected they will, with the former already set to lose staff following the abolition of NHS England that was announced earlier this month.
Politics latest: PM admits cost of living crisis ‘ongoing’
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, confirmed in last week’s spring statement that the government was setting aside £150m to fund the voluntary exit schemes, which differ from voluntary redundancy in that they offer departments more flexibility around the terms offered to departing staff.
Ms Reeves said the funding would enable departments to reduce staffing numbers over the next two years, creating “significant savings” on staff employment costs.
A maximum limit for departing staff is usually set at one month per year of service capped at 21 months of pay or £95,000.
Whitehall sources stressed the figure was “very much the maximum that could be offered” given that the average civil service salary is just over £30,000 per year.
Whitehall departments will need to bid for the money provided at the spring statement and match the £150m from their own budgets, bringing the total funding to £300m.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Spring statement 2025 key takeaways
The Cabinet Office is understood to be targeting 400 employees in a scheme that was announced last year and will continue to run over this year.
A spokesman said each application to the scheme would be examined on a case-by-case basis to ensure “we retain critical skills and experience”.
It is up to each government department to decide how they operate their scheme.
The voluntary exit schemes form part of the government’s ambition to reduce bureaucracy and make the state more efficient amid a gloomy economic backdrop.
Ahead of the spring statement, Ms Reeves announced plans to cut civil service running costs by 15% by 2030, which ministers have said will save £2.2bn.
Read more from Sky News:
Sentencing guidelines for ethnic minority suspects delayed
Major incident declared as ‘17,000 tonnes’ of rubbish piles up
The move could result in 10,000 civil service jobs being axed after numbers ballooned during the pandemic.
Ms Reeves hopes the cuts, which she said will be to “back office jobs” rather than frontline services, but civil service unions have raised concerns that government departments will inevitably lose skilled and experienced staff.
The cuts form part of a wider government agenda to streamline the civil service and the size of the British state, which Sir Keir Starmer criticised as “weaker than it has ever been”.
During the same speech, he announced that NHS England, the administrative body that runs the NHS, would also be scrapped to eliminate duplication and cut costs.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway