Rwanda scheme ‘probably dead’, claims former Supreme Court justice

Published

2 years ago

November 19, 2023

admin

The government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is “probably dead” after it was ruled unlawful this week by the Supreme Court, one of its former justices has said.

The court confirmed its “unanimous” decision on Wednesday after 18 months of legal battles, 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.

Politics live: Chancellor ‘wants to lower tax burden’

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has pledged to push on with the scheme – which aims to deter asylum seekers travelling to the country on small boats – promising to turn the agreement with the east African nation into a legally binding treaty to allay the court’s fears, and to change the law in the UK to define Rwanda as a “safe country”.

And Chancellor Jeremy Hunt told Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips it was the government’s “plan” to bring forward the new treaty and legislation quickly.

But speaking on the same programme, Lord Sumption said such measures “wouldn’t work internationally”, adding it was not a proposal to change the law “but to change the facts”.

MPs on the right of the Conservative Party have been up in arms since the ruling – including the recently sacked home secretary Suella Braverman, who has demanded the government withdraws from international treaties like the European Human Rights Convention or ignores the obligations to ensure the Rwanda scheme can go ahead.

But Lord Sumption called that option “extreme”.

Defending the court’s ruling, he said: “They carefully avoided the political broader merits of the Rwanda project. They confined themselves to looking at whether Rwanda was a safe place to send people to. That was the sole issue.

“And what they decided was that it wasn’t because Rwanda’s record of expelling refugees to places which are or may be unsafe was bad, and because Rwanda just didn’t have the cultural, administrative or political substructure which was necessary to perform an agreement of that sort.”

The peer added: “You can’t in a matter of weeks or months or even years simply turn a country like that into one with an impartial civil service, an independent judiciary and the whole administrative culture.

“Ultimately, what the main problem about this scheme is that it outsources to Rwanda the decision about whether people have refugee status or not. And Rwanda just is not up to the job.”

Lord Sumption said changing the UK law to insist the country is safe may work “domestically”, but even if the government chose to ignore its obligations to international treaties initially, it would “presumably intend to comply” with final orders from the European court.

Asked by Trevor Phillips if the scheme was now “dead” as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, the peer said: “I think the current Rwanda’s scheme is probably dead, but we obviously have to suspend judgements until we see what this legislation or this new treaty looks like.

“There are other possibilities. They’re not terribly attractive, but they do exist.”

Asked if he was comfortable with a change in the law to ensure the Rwanda scheme could push ahead, Mr Hunt told Trevor Phillips: “Yes, that is our democratic right as members of parliament, we made that commitment to the British people.”

On small boat crossings, the chancellor said the government was “making progress, but we haven’t yet finished the job”, adding: “We’ve been very clear we will do what it takes because a government’s job is to secure borders.

“We don’t think the system at the moment is fair to the British people, and nor is it fair to the people who are being smuggled by these evil gangs. We should decide who comes here and not those gangs.

“We will do it lawfully. And if we need to change the law, we’ll do that.”

Politics

Why are abuse survivors losing faith in the grooming gang inquiry?

Published

3 hours ago

October 22, 2025

admin

Why are abuse survivors losing faith in the grooming gang inquiry?

The grooming gangs inquiry has been plunged into disarray this week before it has even started, as four survivors have quit the panel and two frontrunners for chairperson have withdrawn.

The inquiry was announced in June, but frustrations have grown over the pace of progress towards launching it, with pressure mounting on the government to appoint a chair and set out its terms of reference.

Survivors Fiona Goddard and Ellie-Ann Reynolds were first to stand down from their roles over concerns about who could head the inquiry and fears it may be “watered down” – something Sir Keir Starmer has denied, insisting that “injustice will have no place to hide”.

Both candidates shortlisted to lead the inquiry have now pulled out.

Here’s what we know about why panel members have quit and what the government has said in response.

Concerns over inquiry chairs

The resignations came after Sky News revealed the two shortlisted chairs for the inquiry were former police chief Jim Gamble and social worker Annie Hudson.

Ms Goddard was the first to resign from the survivors’ liaison panel, expressing deep reservations about the candidates: “One has a background in police and the other, a social worker. The very two services that contributed most to the cover-up of the national mass rape and trafficking of children.

“This is a disturbing conflict of interest, and I fear the lack of trust in services from years of failings and corruption will have a negative impact in survivor engagement with this inquiry.”

The other survivors who resigned also took issue with the shortlisted chairs in their statements.

Ms Hudson withdrew her candidacy on Tuesday, while Mr Gamble pulled out of the running on Wednesday.

In a letter to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood explaining his decision, Mr Gamble said it was “clear that a lack of confidence due to my previous occupation exists among some” and that he did not want to proceed without a consensus among the victims.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that candidates to chair that inquiry have withdrawn. This is an extremely sensitive topic, and we have to take the time to appoint the best person suitable for the role.”

Speaking to Sky News after Mr Gamble’s resignation, Ms Reynolds said: “The minute that we found out their former employment, it raised red flags.”

She claimed they represented “the very institutions that have failed us” and that their views would not have been “unbiased” or “impartial”.

During Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Sir Keir said his government “will find the right person to chair the inquiry”, but did not mention names.

Ms Reynolds and other victims have called for a judge to chair the inquiry, but Sir Keir said he ruled that out because it would require all ongoing criminal proceedings to finish before the inquiry could begin, leading to lengthy delays.

“We’ve waited years for the truth,” Ms Reynolds said. “The timing really doesn’t matter. As long as we know that it’s going to be done properly and impartially… we would be able to wait to ensure that that’s done.”

The full statutory inquiry into how cases of child sexual exploitation have been handled across England and Wales was announced by Sir Keir after an audit by Baroness Louise Casey found children had been failed by the systems in place to protect them.

On Wednesday, Sir Keir said Baroness Casey would be working in support of the inquiry.

Claims about poor treatment of survivors

Ms Reynolds said survivors were “kept in the dark” and “treated with contempt and ignored” when they asked about Home Office meetings and decisions. She said it was made clear that “speaking openly would jeopardise our place on the panel”.

She told Sky News that victims were “gaslit” and “manipulated” during the process and they had “very little faith in authorities and systems”.

Similarly, Ms Goddard claimed a “toxic, fearful environment” had been created for survivors on the panel, with “condescending and controlling language” used towards them.

Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips has said she “regrets” resignations from the inquiry and that it was “always sad when victims feel that they can’t take part in a process”.

On Wednesday, Sir Keir said: “I respect the views of all the survivors, and there are different views, I accept that.”

He added that the door was open for people to return to the inquiry panel if they wished.

Fears of ‘diluted’ inquiry

The survivors say they fear the inquiry could be diluted, suggesting the Home Office could broaden its scope beyond group-based sexual abuse and push for it to have a regional focus rather than being truly national.

Ms Goddard said the survivors had “repeatedly faced suggestions from officials to expand this inquiry” and that it risked being “watered down”.

Ms Reynolds said the “final turning point” in her decision to quit the panel was the “push to widen the remit of the National Inquiry in ways that downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse”.

Ms Phillips said allegations that the inquiry is being diluted or intentionally delayed were “false” and that it would “remain laser-focused on grooming gangs”.

Ms Goddard claimed this amounted to the minister calling her “a liar” and said she should apologise and resign.

Ms Reynolds also said she believed Ms Phillips was “unfit for the role”.

During PMQs on Wednesday, Sir Keir defended the safeguarding minister, saying she and Baroness Casey were the “right people” to take the inquiry forward.

He insisted the inquiry “is not and will never be watered down” and that “its scope will not change”.

“It will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders, and we will find the right person to chair the inquiry,” he said.

‘They should start again’

The father of a grooming gang victim says the government “should start again” with the national inquiry.

Marlon West, whose daughter Scarlett was a victim of sexual exploitation in Manchester, told Sky News that public “faith” has been “lost”.

He described Ms Phillips in parliament this week as “unprofessional” and “defensive rather than listening to what survivors are saying.”

“I doubt she will resign but she has lost any kind of faith from the public, and more importantly with survivors and families.

He wants to see an inquiry with family members included alongside survivors on the panel.

“Not that I want to go on it, if I’m honest,” he said, “but it’s the families who are dealing with the services, not so much the survivors.

“It’s really important that they get family perspective. I think they should start again.”

Government denies ‘watered down’ approach

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood responded to the resignations saying the scope of the inquiry “will not change” and that it will leave “no hiding place” for those involved in the scandal.

In an article for The Times, she vowed the probe “will never be watered down on my watch” – and said it will focus on how “some of the most vulnerable people in this country” were abused “at the hands of predatory monsters”.

The home secretary also insisted the inquiry will be “robust and rigorous” – with the power to compel witnesses, and examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders.

Speaking to Times Radio on Wednesday, Ms Goddard said the Home Secretary’s statement was “reassuring” but reiterated that Ms Phillips should resign.