Downing Street is confident migrants CAN BE deported to Rwanda despite Court of Appeal ruling

Downing Street is understood to be confident that migrants can be deported to Rwanda despite the Court of Appeal ruling it was ‘unlawful’ – as Rishi Sunak declares he’ll ‘do whatever is necessary to make it happen’.

No 10 was dealt a major blow yesterday after the flagship immigration scheme was thrown into disarray when judges blocked it on human rights grounds.

The Court of Appeal said sending any migrants to Rwanda would be ‘considered a breach of Article 3’ of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and ill treatment.

It is the second time the Rwanda scheme has been blocked – Strasbourg judges intervened to stop the first flight to Kigali a year ago. 

Mr Sunak said yesterday that he ‘fundamentally disagrees’ with the ruling and claimed the Government ‘should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs’.

Despite the major setback, the Prime Minister is understood to be ‘positive’ about overturning the judgment after announcing the Government would seek permission to appeal in the Supreme Court, The Daily Telegraph reports.

A Government source also told the newspaper: ‘The dissenting judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, the most senior judge on this panel, is very strong.’ 

Speaking after yesterday’s ruling, a defiant Mr Sunak said: ‘While I respect the court I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions.

‘The policy of this Government is very simple, it is this country – and your Government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen.’

The ruling means migrants who arrive by ‘irregular’ routes, such as in small boats across the Channel, still cannot be sent to Rwanda under the £140million deal signed with the country last year.

The court case will take months to resolve, increasing the likelihood of immigration and human rights becoming key battlegrounds in the run-up to the next election.

The appeal judges overturned a decision by the High Court, which ruled in December that the scheme was lawful. They voted two to one in favour of a challenge from Asylum Aid, a migrant charity backed the UNHCR refugee agency.

The most senior judge in England and Wales – Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett – wrote a dissenting ruling that backed the Government and said asylum seekers would enjoy ‘powerful protection’ in Rwanda.

Mr Sunak said: ‘I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries – something that the Lord Chief Justice agrees with. Rwanda is a safe country. The High Court agreed.

‘The UNHCR have their own refugee scheme for Libyan refugees in Rwanda. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.’

The PM’s spokesman declined to ‘put a timetable’ on whether Downing Street believed any migrants would be sent to Rwanda before the next election.

The landmark judgment was a major blow to Mr Sunak who has made stopping the boats one of his five key pledges to voters. Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she remained ‘fully committed’ to the scheme.

Asked if she was blaming ‘Lefty lawyers’ or an Establishment ‘Blob’ for the setback, she said: ‘The system is rigged against the British people, it’s as simple as that.

‘It’s why we’re changing the laws through our Illegal Migration Bill, it’s why we’re rolling out a ground-breaking partnership with Rwanda which we believe is lawful, with a country which we believe is safe.

‘So, we need to change the system, we need to change our laws, that’s how we’re going to stop the boats.’

But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer dismissed the Rwanda scheme, saying: ‘The Government hasn’t got a plan. It’s had one headline-grabbing gimmick which has already cost the taxpayer £140million without anybody having gone to Rwanda.’

The two judges who ruled against the Government were the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill.

*BELOW IS A SUMMARY OF YESTERDAY’S JUDGMENT* 

They decided that ‘deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda’ meant there were ‘substantial grounds’ for believing migrants sent there ‘will be returned to their home countries where they have faced persecution or other inhumane treatment’.

Read Related Also: Miami Beach sues acclaimed artist after $1.1 MILLION public artwork installation falls apart

This would breach Article 3 of the human rights convention, they said. 

However, the Lord Chief Justice said ‘extensive monitoring arrangements’ in the Rwanda scheme provided ‘powerful protection’ for migrants.

He added there was ‘no real risk’ of failed asylum seekers being returned to their country of origin. 

Agreed by former home secretary Dame Priti Patel in April last year, the arrangement aims to allow the Home Office to send irregular migrants to the east African nation on a one-way ticket.

It sets out how migrants would receive housing and support while claiming asylum there and not in Britain.

Yesterday the Rwandan government said it took ‘issue’ with the latest ruling and insisted it was ‘one of the safest countries in the world’.

Government spokesman Yolande Makolo said: ‘Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world and we have been recognised by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.’

The Government has until Thursday to submit initial paperwork for permission to appeal against the ruling.

Richard Ekins, an Oxford University professor who has written papers on immigration for the think-tank Policy Exchange, suggested the Rwanda scheme required radical reform.

He added: ‘The Court of Appeal’s judgment is a blow to the Rwanda plan and, unless the Supreme Court allows an appeal, the Government may need to think again about arranging for British officials to process claims offshore rather than attempting to outsource responsibility to Rwandan officials.’