The Supreme Court ruled against the UK government’s policy aiming to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda and prevent their return, citing concerns that this could expose them to the risk they initially fled from.
This decision followed an appeal by the government after the Court of Appeal’s previous ruling deeming the policy unlawful in June.
At the core of the legal challenge was the principle of “non-refoulement,” ensuring asylum seekers aren’t returned to a place where they face harm, a principle entrenched in UK and international human rights laws.
The court highlighted that there wasn’t a thorough assessment of Rwanda’s safety, as the policy didn’t sufficiently address the risks individuals might face upon deportation.
The judgment didn’t outright prohibit sending migrants elsewhere but shattered the £140m Rwanda deportation scheme.
Additionally, it’s uncertain if other countries would consider similar agreements with the UK.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision underscored substantial doubts regarding Rwanda’s ability to ensure safety, expressing concerns that individuals deported to Rwanda might end up in unsafe environments due to gaps in the asylum system.
While acknowledging Rwanda’s good faith, the court highlighted uncertainties about the country’s practical capacity to fulfill assurances and rectify deficiencies in its asylum procedures promptly.
Source-BBC
