Rwanda: What is the government policy and why has it ended up in the courts?
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.
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
A young woman who claimed to be Madeleine McCann has been convicted of harassing the missing toddler’s family.
However, Julia Wandelt, 24, was cleared of stalking the couple.
A Polish national born three years after Madeleine, Wandelt said she suspected she had been abducted and brought up by a couple who were not her real parents.
She was having mental health issues at the time and had been abused by an elderly relative.
The relative looked like an artist’s drawing of a man who was once a suspect in the Madeleine case, which she stumbled across during internet research on missing children.
She went to Los Angeles and told a US TV chat show audience: “I believe I am Madeleine McCann.”
Madeleine was nearly four when she vanished from the family’s rented holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007.
She had been left sleeping with her younger twin siblings, Sean and Amelia, while her parents dined nearby with friends, making intermittent checks on the children.
Madeleine is the world’s most famous missing child, the subject of three international police investigations that have failed to find any trace of her.
Wandelt claimed to have a blemish in the iris of her right eye, like Madeleine’s, and to resemble aged-progressed images of her.
Madeleine McCann went missing during a family holiday to Portugal in 2007. Pic: PA
Over three years, she attracted half a million followers on her Instagram account, iammadeleinemccan, and posted her claims on TikTok.
Police told her she was not Madeleine and ordered her not to approach her family, but she ignored the warning.
The McCanns and their children gave evidence in the trial at Leicester Crown Court, describing the upset Wandelt had caused them.
Her co-defendant, Karen Spragg, 61, from Cardiff, was found not guilty of stalking and harassment.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the latest version.
You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
Public safety is “at risk” because more inmates are being sent to prisons with minimal security, a serving governor has warned – as details emerge of another manhunt for a foreign national offender.
Mark Drury – speaking in his role as representative for open prison governors at the Prison Governors’ Association – told Sky News open prisons that have had no absconders for “many years” are now “suddenly” experiencing a rise in cases.
It comes after a man who was serving a 21-year sentence for kidnap and grievous bodily harm absconded from an open prison in Sussex last month.
Sky News has learned that Ola Abimbola is a foreign national offender who still hasn’t returned to HMP Ford – and Sussex Police says it is working with partners to find him.
WARNING: Some readers may find the content in this article distressing
Ola Abimbola absconded from an open prison. Pic: Sussex Police
For Natalie Queiroz, who was stabbed 24 times by her ex-partner while she was eight months’ pregnant with their child, the warnings could not feel starker.
Natalie sustained injuries to all her major organs and her arms, while the knife only missed her unborn baby by 2mm.
“Nobody expected either of us to survive,” she told Sky News.
Babur Raja was sentenced to 18 years for attempted murder, but Natalie has recently been told that he’s set to be moved to an open prison four years earlier than planned.
“Any day now, my ex who created this untold horror is about to go to an open prison,” Natalie said.
Open prisons – otherwise known as Category D jails – have minimal security and are traditionally used to house prisoners right at the end of their sentence, to prepare them for integrating back into society.
With overcrowding in higher security jails, policy changes mean more prisoners are eligible for a transfer to open conditions earlier on in their sentence.
Natalie Queiroz was stabbed 24 times by her ex-partner
“It doesn’t feel right, it’s terrifying, and it also doesn’t feel like justice,” Natalie said, wiping away tears at points.
Previously, rules stated a transfer to open prison could only take place within three years of their eligibility for parole – but no earlier than five years before their automatic release date.
The five-year component was dropped in March last year under the previous government, but the parole eligibility element was extended to five years in April 2025.
Raja, who is due for release in 2034, has parole eligibility 12 years into his sentence, which is 2028.
Under the rule change, this eligibility for open prison is set for this year – but under the new rules it could have been 2023, which is within five years of his parole date.
Another change, introduced in the spring, means certain offenders can be assumed suitable for open prisons three years early – extended from two years.
Natalie says her ex-partner Babur Raja caused ‘untold horror’
Natalie has been campaigning to prevent violent offenders and domestic abuse perpetrators from being eligible to transfer to an open prison early.
She’s had meetings with ministers and raised both her case and others.
“They actually said – he is dangerous,” she told Sky News.
“I said to [the minister]: ‘How can you make a risk assessment for someone like that?’
“And they went: ‘If we’re honest, we can’t’.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What’s wrong with our prisons?
Read more UK news:
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor summoned by Congress
How Elon Musk is boosting the British right
The government told Sky News that Raja’s crimes were “horrific” and that their “thoughts remain with the victim”.
They also insist that the “small number of offenders eligible for moves to open prison face a strict, thorough risk assessment” – while anyone breaking the rules “can be immediately returned”.
Mark Drury, a representative of the Prison Governors’ Association
But Mr Drury describes risk assessments as an “algorithm tick box” because of “the pressure on offender management units”.
These warnings come at an already embarrassing time for the Prison Service after migrant sex offender Hadush Kebatu was mistakenly freed last month.
This week, it emerged two others have been freed in error since then, amid new release checks.
In response to this report, the Ministry of Justice says it “inherited a justice system in crisis, with prisons days away from collapse” – forcing “firm action to get the situation back under control”.
The government has promised to add 14,000 new prison places by 2031 and introduce sentencing reforms.
The US Congress has written to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor requesting an interview with him in connection with his “long-standing friendship” with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said it is investigating the late financier’s “sex trafficking operations”.
It told Andrew: “The committee is seeking to uncover the identities of Mr Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers, and to understand the full extent of his criminal operations.
“Well-documented allegations against you, along with your long-standing friendship with Mr Epstein, indicate that you may possess knowledge of his activities relevant to our investigation.
“In the interest of justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, we request that you co-operate with the committee’s investigation by sitting for a transcribed interview with the committee.”
The congressional committee wants to understand any ‘activities’ relevant to its Epstein investigation. PA file pic
Virginia Giuffre, who died in April, accused Andrew of sexually assaulting her after being introduced by Epstein. Andrew has always vehemently denied her accusations.
The letter to the former prince, is addressed to Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, the home he agreed last week to leave, when he was stripped of his royal titles.
It outlines his “close relationship” with Epstein and references a recently revealed 2011 email exchange in which Andrew told him “we are in this together”.
And it says the committee has identified “financial records containing notations such as ‘massage for Andrew’ that raise serious questions”.
Read more:
Andrew’s fall from grace
Can William escape Andrew questions in Brazil?
The committee said Andrew’s links to Epstein “further confirms our suspicion that you may have valuable information about the crimes committed by Mr Epstein and his co-conspirators”.
The letter, signed by 16 members of Congress, requested Andrew responds by 20 November.
It came as the King officially stripped his disgraced brother of both his HRH style and his prince title.
The move followed the publication Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoirs, and the US government’s release of documents from the paedophile’s estate.
Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times – once at convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell’s home in London, once in Epstein’s address in Manhattan, and once on the disgraced financier’s private island, Little St James.
The incident at Maxwell’s home allegedly occurred when Ms Giuffre was 17 years old.
Epstein took his own life in a New York prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 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
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024