The UK Supreme Court will decide what happens to the government’s idea to send certain people who are seeking asylum to Rwanda. It is not definite what will happen, and the whole situation is more complicated than what you see in the news titles.
Let’s start again.
The UK is part of a legal agreement called the Refugee Convention. This means that it has agreed to look into the situations of people who come to the country asking for shelter.
It is very hard to ask for protection in the UK, so more and more people are coming with the assistance of smugglers.
The government believes that these individuals, who could have sought protection in France or other European Union countries, should not come to the UK.
So, a while ago, the UK government made an agreement with Rwanda. The agreement said that Rwanda would help the UK by taking in some of the people who are seeking asylum there. So far, they have paid £140m to do this. It is still not clear how many more they will need to pay, even if the plan starts working.
In 2022, the Home Secretary at the time, Priti Patel, said that 47 migrants who had crossed the English Channel could be sent on the first airplane. The number decreased to only seven before the planned departure date of June 14th.
But the lawyers representing the migrants requested the High Court to halt the flight before a complete legal challenge is made against the Rwanda plan.
The judge said the flight could go before the plan was reviewed, and other judges agreed with his decision.
However, just as the plane was getting ready to leave, a judge in Strasbourg, at the European Court of Human Rights, stopped them from taking off.
It means that British judges need time to carefully evaluate the policy, and that’s exactly what they have been doing all this time.
“Media caption” means the accompanying text or description that provides information about a media item such as a video or image.
A deflated boat found in the English Channel and taken by the UK Border Force.
What information do we have about people seeking asylum.
The Supreme Court judges are not thinking about the good points of the ten separate cases – but each of them have very different stories to tell.
Three men left Syria because they didn’t want to join the military during the ongoing chaos of the civil war.
One person left five years ago and came to the UK after staying in Turkey for a little while because other members of his family had already moved here.
There is a man from Iran who claims that he was shot by the police because he supported a political campaign against the government.
Legal documents reveal that one of the individuals, originally from Iraq, became very scared for his safety when he found his spouse in bed with the bodyguard of a high-ranking intelligence leader.
There is a person named HTN, and he is from Vietnam. Documents indicate that he traveled to Europe because he was in debt and receiving threats that put his life in danger.
He went to Ukraine, but there was a war, so he had to leave and come to the UK.
Another man from Iran, who is involved in the case, told British officials that he had received asylum protection in Greece two years ago. But he and his son first left, tried again in Germany, and only after that came to the UK.
No matter what you think about the reasons for those cases, the High Court decided that the men were not given an opportunity to present their side of the story before they were added to the Rwanda list.
So, in simple terms, the court decided in December that the Rwanda plan was legal. However, at that time, the home secretary did not have anyone to send there.
After that, the case went to the Court of Appeal – and that’s when things became more difficult for the government.
In late June, a decision was made by two judges to one that there were many issues with Rwanda’s asylum system. This meant that asylum seekers could be sent back to the country they had initially fled from.
If that happens, the UK will break the international rule against endangering people with torture. This rule is part of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The only judge who disagreed was the person who was in charge at the time. They believed that the danger was not likely to happen.
What is happening currently.
The Supreme Court’s main job is to decide who is correct when it comes to the legal criteria for evaluating Rwanda’s asylum system and the possibility of torture.
If the Supreme Court says the Court of Appeal is right, then the Rwanda plan, as it is now, will not happen.
This decision could have consequences for future agreements to send people to other countries, depending on the situation.
What if the government is victorious.
In theory, it only takes 12 days for ministers to arrange a flight to Rwanda.
In reality, it could take a much longer time.
In this situation, people who get a ticket could have a chance of taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Is it ready to get involved again.
The Strasbourg court got involved last year because someone complained that British judges did not have enough time to review the plan properly.
If someone wants to bring a case to the court, they would need to prove that UK judges did not fully consider all the human rights matters, even after discussing the matter for 16 months in court.
But what if Strasbourg tried to prevent a flight again. The person in charge of the country’s internal affairs could have another strategy to use.
She now has a new power that has not been tested yet. This power is due to a new law called the Illegal Migration Act that was recently passed. With this power, she can choose to ignore a temporary order from the ECtHR.
But you know what. Trying to use it could lead to new challenges.