The government’s Rwanda plan, devised to tackle illegal migration, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, ending over 18 months of legal battles in the UK.
Lord Reed announced the “unanimous” judgment from the court’s justices on Wednesday, saying those sent to the country would be at “real risk” of being returned home, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not – breaching international law.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the judgment was “not the outcome we wanted”, but insisted the government remained “completely committed to stopping the boats” and would now “consider next steps”.
Downing Street also confirmed Mr Sunak would hold a press conference at 4.45pm over the issue – following a statement in the Commons from the new Home Secretary James Cleverly.
Charities celebrated the decision as “a victory for humanity”, while opposition parties attacked the government for wasting time and money on the “immoral, unworkable” policy.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:31
Rwanda ruling ‘massive blow’ to PM
The Rwanda scheme, which would see those arriving in the UK illegally – including via small boats – deported to the east African nation, was first put forward by Boris Johnson in April 2022.
More on Rishi Sunak
Related Topics:
Successive prime ministers all claimed the policy would act as a deterrent to those seeking to cross the Channel, as well as help to break up people-smuggling gangs.
But critics consistently called the proposal “inhumane”, and the plan was dubbed a “gimmick” by political opponents.
Advertisement
An injunction from the European Court of Human Rights stopped the first flight to Rwanda from taking off in June last year and the scheme has been embroiled in litigation ever since, meaning no asylum seekers have yet been deported to the country.
Delivering the Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday, Lord Reed said there were “serious and systematic defects in Rwanda’s procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims”.
Those issues led to “concerns about the asylum process itself, such as the lack of legal representation, the risk that judges and lawyers will not act independently of the government in politically sensitive cases, and a completely untested right of appeal to the High Court”.
The justice also said there was a “surprisingly high rate of rejection of asylum claims from certain countries in known conflict zones”, including Syria and Yemen, which many people coming to the UK may originate from.
And he pointed to an “apparent inadequacy of the Rwandan government’s understanding of the requirements of the Refugee Convention”, specifically that under the United Nations agreement, asylum seekers had to be protected from “refoulement” – being sent back to their country of origin – and there was evidence the country had failed to comply with this when it signed a similar deal with Israel.
“The Supreme Court accepts that the Rwandan government entered into the [deal with the UK] in good faith, that it has incentives to ensure that it is adhered to, and that monitoring arrangements provide a further safeguard,” said Lord Reed.
“Nevertheless, the evidence shows that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will therefore be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.
“The changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate that risk may be delivered in the future, but they were not shown to be in place when the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy had to be considered in these proceedings.”
Lord Reed underlined that the Supreme Court’s decision was a “legal question” based on international law – including the European Convention on Human Rights and various UN treaties – and the court was “not concerned with the political debate” about the scheme.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the ruling was “not the outcome we wanted”, but added: “We have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats.”
Image: Rishi Sunak will hold a press conference this afternoon following the ruling. Pic: AP
Mr Sunak continued: “Crucially, the Supreme Court – like the Court of Appeal and the High Court before it – has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the government’s clear view from the outset.
“Illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so.
“Because when people know that if they come here illegally, they won’t get to stay then they will stop coming altogether, and we will stop the boats.”
Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo accepted it was “ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system”, but added: “We do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country for asylum seekers and refugees, in terms of refoulement.
“Rwanda is committed to its international obligations, and we have been recognized by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.” .
But the CEO of the Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, called it “a victory for the rights of men, women and children who simply want to be safe”.
He added: “The plan goes against who we are as a country that stands up for those less fortunate than us and for the values of compassion, fairness and humanity.
“The government should be focusing on creating a functioning asylum system that allows people who seek safety in the UK a fair hearing on our soil and provides safe routes so they don’t have to take dangerous journeys.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
‘Ruling is reminder no one is above the law’
Labour called it a “damning” judgement, with shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper saying the prime minister’s “flagship policy has completely failed”.
She added: “[It] exposes Rishi Sunak’s failure to get any grip or have any serious plan to tackle dangerous boat crossings, which are undermining border security and putting lives at risk.
“Labour argued from the start this plan is unworkable and extortionately expensive, now it has been confirmed as unlawful because the government failed to ensure they had a robust and workable policy.
“Ministers knew about the weaknesses in this scheme from the start and yet they insisted on making it their flagship policy.”
Liberal Democrat spokesperson and MP Alistair Carmichael said: “It was clear from the get-go that the Conservatives’ Rwanda scheme was destined to fail. Not only is it immoral, unworkable and incredibly costly for taxpayers – but the Supreme Court has confirmed that it’s unlawful too.
“So much time and money has already been wasted. It’s time for [Home Secretary] James Cleverly to get serious and get on with fixing the broken asylum system.”
Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge
Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm.
Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.
The ruling is now likely to reignite a row in the Conservatives over the UK’s future as a signatory of international human rights agreements – something the now ex-home secretary Suella Braverman has railed against.
MPs on the right of the party have been calling on the UK to exit or attempt to work around the European Human Rights Convention (EHRC), arguing the final say on government policy should be made in the British parliament rather than abroad.
One faction, called the New Conservatives, have been meeting this morning to discuss their next steps.
In her blistering letter to Mr Sunak after she was sacked earlier this week, Ms Braverman pre-emptively pinned the blame on the prime minister for the Rwanda plan falling in the courts, accusing him of not having a “plan B” to push forward.
However, many in the party believe it is right to remain part of the agreements that protect human rights, standing alongside international allies.
Mr Sunak will face questions from across the Commons at midday when he takes part in this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions.
Several demonstrators have been detained after rival groups faced off over a hotel accommodating asylum seekers in north London, with police breaking up brief clashes.
The Metropolitan Police has since imposed conditions on the protest and counter-protest outside the Thistle City Barbican Hotel in Islington.
The protest was organised by local residents under the banner “Thistle Barbican needs to go – locals say no”.
The group of several hundred people waved union flags and banners, and one man chanted: “Get these scum off our streets.”
Image: Anti-immigration protesters waved Union Jack flags. Pic: PA
A larger group staged a counter demonstration to voice support for asylum seekers, bearing a banner that read: “Refugees are welcome.”
People inside the hotel, believed to be migrants, watched on, with some waving and blowing kisses from the windows.
More on Migrant Crossings
Related Topics:
Image: People believed to be asylum seekers waved the hotel windows. Pic: PA
Image: Pro-immigration protesters gathered by the Thistle City Barbican Hotel. Pic: PA
A man wearing an England football shirt was detained by police after getting into an altercation with officers.
There have been nine arrests so far, seven of which were for breaching conditions police put on the protests under the Public Order Act.
Rival groups separated by police
Another protest was scheduled in Newcastle on Saturday, outside The New Bridge Hotel, as anti-migrant sentiment ripples through some communities around the country, also flaring up recently in Epping.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:09
Last week: Protesters divided over migrant hotels
The counter-protest in London was organised by local branches of Stand Up To Racism, and supported by former Labour leader and Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn.
Other community groups including Finsbury Park Mosque and Islington Labour Party were also involved.
Groups online that backed the original protest include “Patriots of Britain” and “Together for the Children”.
At one point, a large group of masked protesters dressed in black, calling themselves anti-fascists, appeared from a side street and marched towards the rival group outside the hotel.
The two groups briefly clashed before police rushed in to separate them.
Image: Pic: PA
Image: Supporters of local protest group ‘Thistle Barbican needs to go – locals say no’. Pic: PA
Why are asylum hotels used?
The government is legally required to provide accommodation and subsistence to destitute asylum seekers while their claims are being decided, most of whom are prohibited from working.
A jump in the use of hotels since 2020 has been attributed to the impacts of the COVID pandemic, a backlog in unresolved asylum cases, and an increase in the number of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats.
However, the number of asylum seekers living in hotels has fallen recently, from 38,079 at the end of 2024 to 32,345 at the end of March 2025, according to the Refugee Council.
How police tried to keep groups apart
The police imposed conditions on both groups in London to prevent “serious disorder” and minimise disruption to the community.
Those in the anti-asylum hotel protest were told to remain within King Charles Square, and to gather not before 1pm and wrap up by 4pm.
Those in the counter-protest were to required to stay in an area in Lever Street, and assemble only between 12pm and 4pm, but were still in eye and ear shot of the other group.
Chief Superintendent Clair Haynes, in charge of the policing operation, said: “We have been in discussions with the organisers of both protests in recent days, building on the ongoing engagement between local officers, community groups and partners.
“We understand that there are strongly held views on all sides.
“Our officers will police without fear or favour, ensuring those exercising their right to protest can do so safely, but intervening at the first sign of actions that cross the line into criminality.”
Meanwhile, the protest in Newcastle was promoted by online posts saying it was “for our children, for our future”.
The “stop the far right and fascists in Newcastle” counter-protest was organised by Stand Up To Racism at the nearby Laing Art Gallery.
A man has been remanded into custody charged with child cruelty offences after allegedly lacing sweets with sedatives.
Jon Ruben, 76, of Ruddington, Nottinghamshire, appeared at Leicester Magistrates’ Court on Saturday after youngsters fell ill at a summer camp in Stathern, Leicestershire.
He has been charged with three counts of wilfully assaulting, ill-treating, neglecting, abandoning or exposing children in a manner likely to cause them unnecessary suffering or injury to health.
The charges relate to three boys at the camp between 25-29 July.
Image: The scene in Stathern, Leicestershire. Pic: PA
Ruben spoke only to confirm his name, age and address.
Police received a report of children feeling unwell at a camp being held at Stathern Lodge, near Melton in Leicestershire, last Sunday.
Officers said paramedics attended the scene and eight boys – aged between eight and 11 – were taken to hospital as a precaution, as was an adult. They have since been discharged.
Police said the “owners and operators of Stathern Lodge are independent from those people who use or hire the lodge and are not connected to the incident”.
Leicestershire Police has referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, after officers initially reported the incident as having happened on Monday, only to later amend it to Sunday.
It is still unclear when officers responded and whether that is why the watchdog referral has been made.
Ruben will next appear at Leicester Crown Court on 29 August.
Addressing the City Academy Voices choir directly, the bishop of Fulham said: “I write to apologise for the distress and offence I caused in bringing the concert to a premature end.
“This should not have happened … I also apologise for remarks which were made in haste, and which have understandably caused hurt and distress.”
Image: The bishop, in his dressing gown, gave the choir a dressing down
Mr Baker had demanded for the performance to stop because it was 10pm – and says he didn’t realise the choir had booked the church until 11pm.
In the statement obtained by Sky News, he added: “I have lived here on site at St Andrew’s for 10 years, for much of which City Academy has rehearsed and performed here.
“You have been, and continue to be, welcome – and I hope that you will be able to continue the relationship with us.
More from UK
“I can give you every assurance that the events of Friday evening will not recur, and I apologise again to performers (especially those unable to perform at the end of the evening) and the audience alike.”
Image: The choir performed their last song
The choir was performing to a 300-strong audience in Holborn when the lights were suddenly turned off, with Mr Baker declaring the concert was “over”.
A church employee then asked the crowd to leave quietly and for the musicians to step down from the stage, attracting boos from the audience.
The choir went on to perform one last song, an A cappella version of ABBA’s Dancing Queen, before bringing their show to a close.
One member of the audience, who was attending with his 10-year-old daughter, told Sky News he initially thought the interruption was a staged joke.
Benedict Collins had told Sky News: “This work deserves respect, not to be disparaged as a ‘terrible racket’. The people here had put their heart and soul into it.
“The bishop cut them off in midstream, preventing soloists who had worked their hardest from singing – and preventing the audience, which included people of all ages, from enjoying it to the end.”
The choir told Sky News it was “upsetting” that they were unable to finish their show as planned, but “hold no hard feelings and wish the bishop well”.
A spokesperson added: “If anyone is thinking of joining one of our choirs, the City Academy Voices rehearse on Mondays in central London. Dressing gowns optional.”