Connect with us

Published

on

The government’s flagship immigration policy, known as the Rwanda plan, is hanging in the balance this morning as ministers wait for the judgement of the highest court in the land.

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.

More on Boris Johnson

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 King Charles – 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, English judges ruled the seven people could be deported, saying there had been an “assurance” from 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.

However, 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 ECHR – 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.

Those judges will announce their decision today – and if they stick by the ruling of the Court of Appeal, that would signal the end of the government’s long fought for, but extremely controversial, Rwanda scheme.

Follow the Supreme Court ruling at news.sky.com, on the app, or on Sky News from 10am

Continue Reading

UK

Bhim Kohli: Girl 13, and boy, 15, found guilty of manslaughter of 80-year-old dog walker

Published

on

By

Bhim Kohli: Girl 13, and boy, 15, found guilty of manslaughter of 80-year-old dog walker

A 13-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy have been found guilty of the manslaughter of an 80-year-old dog walker who was attacked in a Leicestershire park.

Bhim Kohli was found lying on the ground in Franklin Park in Braunstone Town, near Leicester, on 1 September last year and died the next evening of a spinal cord injury.

The grandfather, who was attacked just yards from his home, suffered a broken neck and rib fractures consistent with “something heavy striking the rib cage”, the trial heard.

Bhim Sen Kohli
Image:
Bhim Kohli

The boy, who was 14 at the time of the attack, and the girl, who was 12, cannot be named because of their ages.

During a six-week trial at Leicester Crown Court, jurors heard that Mr Kohli was racially abused before the incident.

The girl had also taken a photograph of Mr Kohli in Franklin Park a week before, the court heard.

The jury deliberated for almost seven hours before reaching unanimous verdicts on the pair, who will be sentenced next month.

Mr Kohli was shoved to the ground and slapped in the face with a shoe by a boy wearing a balaclava, the trial heard.

Police community support officers at the scene in Franklin Park last September. Pic: PA
Image:
Police at the scene in Franklin Park last September. Pic: PA

A police report into the incident included a statement from a witness who described “seeing the boy forcefully pushing the old man on to his back”.

The jury heard the witness described the old man as “ending up on the floor screaming”.

A statement from PC Rachelle Pereira said: “Mr Kohli was repeatedly screaming out in pain, shouting out ‘My neck’.”

Her statement said the witness told the police officer she saw a young white boy wearing a black balaclava “shove the old man to the floor and sprint”.

The boy, who denied inflicting the fatal injuries, told a friend he would go “on the run” to Hinckley, in Leicestershire, the day after the attack but was arrested by police minutes later while hiding in a bush, the court heard.

In a letter written two months after the attack, the court heard the boy said “I did it and I accept I’m doing time” and “I kinda just needed anger etc releasing”.

Read more:
Bhim Kohli’s family pay tribute

Mr Justice Turner remanded the boy in custody and granted the girl bail, but told her his decision “should not be taken as any indication as to the sentence when the time comes”.

The boy had also been charged with murder, but was found not guilty by the jury on that count.

The defendants, who sat in the dock for the first time since their trial began, appeared upset as the verdicts were given.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

UK

Trump tariffs could disrupt medicine supplies to UK, warns health secretary

Published

on

By

Trump tariffs could disrupt medicine supplies to UK, warns health secretary

Donald Trump’s tariffs could disrupt the supply of medicines into the UK, the health secretary has warned.

Wes Streeting said the government was “constantly watching and acting on this situation” after the US president refused to back down from the punitive policy, despite turmoil in the markets.

So far Mr Trump has imposed a series of tariffs of varying severity on countries across the world, including a 10% baseline tax on imports from all nations and a 25% levy on all cars imported to the US.

Politics latest: PM prepares to face questions from senior MPs

His actions have sparked fears of a global trade war, with the UK’s benchmark stock market index, the FTSE 100, only just witnessing a slight rise this morning after three days of steep losses.

While the reciprocal tariffs have not yet included pharmaceutical products, there are concerns this could change in the near future.

Speaking to Wilfred Frost on Sky News Breakfast, the health secretary said that even before the US president’s tariff agenda – which has seen him impose a 10% baseline tax on imports from all nations – there had been “issues with medicines production and supply internationally”.

“We are constantly watching and acting on this situation to try and get medicines into the country, to make sure we’ve got availability, to show some flexibility in terms of how medicines are dispensed, to deal with shortages,” he said.

“But whether it’s medicines, whether it’s parts for manufacturing, whether it’s… the ability of businesses in this country to turn a profit, this is an extremely turbulent situation.”

Mr Streeting, who was speaking following the announcement that the government has recruited more than 1,500 new GPs since 1 October, said the steps taken by Mr Trump were “unprecedented in terms of global trade”.

“As ever in terms of medicines, there’s a number of factors at play,” he said.

“There have been challenges in terms of manufacturing, challenges in terms of distribution, and if we start to see tariffs kicking in, that’s another layer of challenge, but we watch this situation extremely closely.

“We work on a daily basis to make sure that we have the medicine supply this country needs.”

Read more:
Trump’s tariffs could herald painful episode
China vows to ‘fight to the end’ over Trump’s new tariff threat

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump’s tariffs: What you need to know

Sir Keir Starmer had been seeking to secure an exemption for the UK from Mr Trump’s punitive tariffs.

But last week, the UK was hit with both the 10% baseline tariff on all imports and the 25% tariff on all cars imported to the US.

The latter tariff could prove particularly damaging for the UK, owing to the fact that the US is the car sector’s largest single market by country – accounting for £6.4bn worth of car exports in 2023.

On Monday, the prime minister announced he would relax rules around electric vehicles in order to mitigate the worst effects of the US tariffs.

While the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars remains in place, regulations around manufacturing targets on electric cars and vans will be altered to help firms during the transition.

Luxury supercar firms such as Aston Martin and McLaren will still be allowed to keep producing petrol cars beyond the 2030 date, while petrol and diesel vans will also be allowed to be sold until 2035, along with hybrids and plug-in hybrid cars.

Continue Reading

UK

Prince Harry’s security case back in court – all you need to know

Published

on

By

Prince Harry's security case back in court - all you need to know

Prince Harry has arrived at court for the start of a two-day hearing about his security arrangements.

The Duke of Sussex is appealing a ruling dismissing his challenge to the level of police protection he receives in the UK, and his case will be heard in front of three judges across Tuesday and Wednesday.

The prince’s dispute goes all the way back to 2020, and is one of several high-profile legal battles he has brought to the High Court in recent years.

So what is the case about, what has happened in the courts so far and what’s happening now?

What is the dispute over?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Harry’s legal battle over security

Harry received full, publicly funded security protection until he stepped back from royal duties and moved to America with wife Meghan in March 2020.

Once he moved away, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which has delegated responsibility from the Home Office for royal security – decided he would not receive the same level of protection.

But Harry has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep his wife and children safe.

He therefore wants access to his previous level of security when in the country, but wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill after he stepped down as a senior member of the Royal Family.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex at the Hillcrest Recreation Centre during the 2025 Invictus Games in Vancouver, Canada. Picture date: Monday February 10, 2025. PA Photo. See PA story ROYAL Invictus. Photo credit should read: Aaron Chown/PA Wire
Image:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in Canada in February. Pic: Aaron Chown/PA Wire

The duke’s legal representative said in a previous statement: “The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in.

“With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk.

“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

The legal representative added: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.

“While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”

What’s happened in court so far?

He filed a claim for a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision shortly after it was made, with the first hearing in the High Court coming in February 2022.

At the start of that hearing, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, told the court the duke’s offer of private funding was “irrelevant”, despite his safety concerns.

In written submissions, he said: “Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis, and Ravec does not make decisions on the provision of such security on the basis that any financial contribution could be sought or obtained to pay for it.”

He added Ravec had attributed to the duke “a form of exceptional status” where he is considered for personal protective security by the police, “with the precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain and by reference to the functions he carries out when present”.

The barrister added: “A case-by-case approach rationally and appropriately allows Ravec to implement a responsive approach to reflect the applicable circumstances.”

The case didn’t conclude until 28 February 2024, when retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled against Prince Harry.

The Duke leaving a service at St Paul's Cathedral in London in May 2024. Pic: AP
Image:
The Duke leaving a service at St Paul’s Cathedral in London in May 2024. Pic: AP

He ruled the decision to change his security status was not unlawful or “irrational”, and that there had been no “procedural unfairness”.

The judge added: “Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry] relief.

“This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different.”

Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case and we are carefully considering our next steps.

“It would be inappropriate to comment further.”

Read more on Prince Harry:
Prince Harry’s charity row explained
Watchdog opens case into charity concerns

Analysis: Row risks Harry’s tribute to Diana

After the ruling, a legal spokesperson for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.

“In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis.

“The duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.

“The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”

Prince eventually gets green light to appeal against High Court ruling

In April 2024, Harry was refused permission to challenge the ruling by the High Court, but was told he could apply to challenge it again directly to the Court of Appeal.

He did so, and in June 2024 the Court of Appeal said it would hear the duke’s challenge following a direct application from his lawyers.

Granting the appeal, Judge David Bean said he was persuaded “not without hesitation” that Harry’s challenge has a real prospect of success.

The two-day Court of Appeal hearing is set to begin at around 10.30am on Tuesday.

Continue Reading

Trending