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.
An alleged attack by the Manchester Arena bomb plotter on prison officers at a high-security jail “will stick with” those impacted “for the rest of their lives”, a former officer and colleague of the victims has said.
He was serving his sentence in a separation unit, known as a “jail within a jail”, after being found guilty of 22 counts of murder for helping his brother Salman Abedi carry out a suicide bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in 2017.
The attack has raised fresh questions about the safety of prison staff.
Inmates inside separation units had access to cooking facilities, which has now been suspended.
Image: Abedi was moved back to Belmarsh after the alleged attack
‘It will stick with them for life’
Matthew, who only wants to be referred to by his first name, worked with the officers who were hospitalised following the attack.
“I’ve spoken to ex-colleagues who I’m still friends with,” he told Sky News.
“They’ve not discussed the specifics of the incident, but they’ve said it will stick with them for the rest of their lives.”
Matthew broke down as he described the “obscene” and “ludicrous” levels of violence that staff face inside prison.
He’s worked at a number of different jails.
“I’ve been there when you’re mopping your colleagues’ blood… when you’ve seen a serious assault, and you don’t know if they’re gonna be OK, and then 10 minutes later, you’ve got to get back on with your day, you’ve got to carry on running the regime,” he said.
“It is difficult, and it is awful.”
Image: Matthew worked with the officers who were hospitalised
‘No adequate protection’
There were 10,496 assaults against prison staff in England and Wales in the 12 months to September – a 19% rise on the previous year.
“The reality is there’s no adequate protections for prison staff, and that’s a great frustration,” the general secretary of the Prison Officers’ Association union, Steve Gillan, told Sky News.
Having visited HMP Frankland earlier in the week, and spoken to many of the officers who were involved, Mr Gillan described the mood among colleagues as one of “anger, frustration, and sadness”.
The association, which represents prison officers, is calling for a “reset” – and for staff to be given stab-proof vests and tasers in “certain circumstances”.
Unwary travellers returning from the EU risk having their sandwiches and local delicacies, such as cheese, confiscated as they enter the UK.
The luggage in which they are carrying their goodies may also be seized and destroyed – and if Border Force catch them trying to smuggle meat or dairy products without a declaration, they could face criminal charges.
This may or may not be bureaucratic over-reaction.
It’s certainly just another of the barriers EU and UK authorities are busily throwing up between each other and their citizens – at a time when political leaders keep saying the two sides should be drawing together in the face of Donald Trump’s attacks on European trade and security.
Image: Keir Starmer’s been embarking on a reset with European leaders. Pic: Reuters
The ban on bringing back “cattle, sheep, goat, and pig meat, as well as dairy products, from EU countries into Great Britain for personal use” is meant “to protect the health of British livestock, the security of farmers, and the UK’s food security.”
There are bitter memories of previous outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in this country, in 1967 and 2001.
In 2001, there were more than 2,000 confirmed cases of infection resulting in six million sheep and cattle being destroyed. Footpaths were closed across the nation and the general election had to be delayed.
In the EU this year, there have been five cases confirmed in Slovakia and four in Hungary. There was a single outbreak in Germany in January, though Defra, the UK agriculture department, says that’s “no longer significant”.
Image: Authorities carry disinfectant near a farm in Dunakiliti, Hungary. Pic: Reuters
Better safe than sorry?
None of the cases of infection are in the three most popular countries for UK visitors – Spain, France, and Italy – now joining the ban. Places from which travellers are most likely to bring back a bit of cheese, salami, or chorizo.
Could the government be putting on a show to farmers that it’s on their side at the price of the public’s inconvenience, when its own measures on inheritance tax and failure to match lost EU subsidies are really doing the farming community harm?
Many will say it’s better to be safe than sorry, but the question remains whether the ban is proportionate or even well targeted on likely sources of infection.
Image: No more gourmet chorizo brought back from Spain for you. File pic: iStock
A ‘Brexit benefit’? Don’t be fooled
The EU has already introduced emergency measures to contain the disease where it has been found. Several thousand cattle in Hungary and Slovenia have been vaccinated or destroyed.
The UK’s ability to impose the ban is not “a benefit of Brexit”. Member nations including the UK were perfectly able to ban the movement of animals and animal products during the “mad cow disease” outbreak in the 1990s, much to the annoyance of the British government of the day.
Since leaving the EU, England, Scotland and Wales are no longer under EU veterinary regulation.
Northern Ireland still is because of its open border with the Republic. The latest ban does not cover people coming into Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man.
Rather than introducing further red tape of its own, the British government is supposed to be seeking closer “alignment” with the EU on animal and vegetable trade – SPS or “sanitary and phytosanitary” measures, in the jargon.
Image: A ban on cheese? That’s anything but cracking. Pic: iStock
UK can’t shake ties to EU
The reasons for this are obvious and potentially make or break for food producers in this country.
The EU is the recipient of 67% of UK agri-food exports, even though this has declined by more than 5% since Brexit.
The introduction of full, cumbersome, SPS checks has been delayed five times but are due to come in this October. The government estimates the cost to the industry will be £330m, food producers say it will be more like £2bn.
With Brexit, the UK became a “third country” to the EU, just like the US or China or any other nation. The UK’s ties to the European bloc, however, are much greater.
Half of the UK’s imports come from the EU and 41% of its exports go there. The US is the UK’s single largest national trading partner, but still only accounts for around 17% of trade, in or out.
The difference in the statistics for travellers are even starker – 77% of trips abroad from the UK, for business, leisure or personal reasons, are to EU countries. That is 66.7 million visits a year, compared to 4.5 million or 5% to the US.
And that was in 2023, before Donald Trump and JD Vance’s hostile words and actions put foreign visitors off.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:40
Trump: ‘Europe is free-loading’
More bureaucratic botheration
Meanwhile, the UK and the EU are making travel between them more bothersome for their citizens and businesses.
This October, the EU’s much-delayed EES or Entry Exit System is due to come into force. Every foreigner will be required to provide biometric information – including fingerprints and scans – every time they enter or leave the Schengen area.
From October next year, visitors from countries including the UK will have to be authorised in advance by ETIAS, the European Travel and Authorisation System. Applications will cost seven euros and will be valid for three years.
Since the beginning of this month, European visitors to the UK have been subject to similar reciprocal measures. They must apply for an ETA, an Electronic Travel Authorisation. This lasts for two years or until a passport expires and costs £16.
The days of freedom of movement for people, goods, and services between the UK and its neighbours are long gone.
The British economy has lost out and British citizens and businesses suffer from greater bureaucratic botheration.
Nor has immigration into the UK gone down since leaving the EU. The numbers have actually gone up, with people from Commonwealth countries, including India, Pakistan and Nigeria, more than compensating for EU citizens who used to come and go.
Image: Editor’s note: Hands off my focaccia sandwiches with prosciutto! Pic: iStock
Will European reset pay off?
The government is talking loudly about the possible benefits of a trade “deal” with Trump’s America.
Meanwhile, minister Nick Thomas Symonds and the civil servant Mike Ellam are engaged in low-profile negotiations with Europe – which could be of far greater economic and social significance.
The public will have to wait to see what progress is being made at least until the first-ever EU-UK summit, due to take place on 19 May this year.
Hard-pressed British food producers and travellers – not to mention young people shut out of educational opportunities in Europe – can only hope that Sir Keir Starmer considers their interests as positively as he does sucking up to the Trump administration.
A 41-year-old man from Penylan has been charged with murder, preventing lawful and decent burial of a dead body and assaulting a person occasioning them actual bodily harm.
A 48-year-old woman from London has been charged with preventing a lawful and decent burial of a dead body and conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
They both appeared at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on Saturday.
“This brings our search for Paria to a sad and tragic end,” said Detective Chief Inspector Matt Powell.
“Paria’s family, all those who knew her, and those in her local community, will be deeply saddened and shocked by these latest developments.
“Family liaison officers are continuing to support Paria’s family.”