Rwanda appeal ruling – live: Braverman says ‘it’s not over yet’ as she doubles down on ‘unlawful’ asylum deal

Home secretary Suella Braverman has insisted “it’s not over yet” as she doubled down on her Rwanda asylum plan, after it was ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal.

The plan to forcibly deport small boat migrants to the African nation was blocked on Thursday, with judges concluding it is not a safe country to receive asylum seekers from the UK.

The Court of Appeal had granted an appeal by asylum seekers selected for deportation after the High Court ruled in December that the plan was lawful. Following Thursday’s judgement, Rishi Sunak said he “fundamentally disagreed” and would appeal to the Supreme Court.

That process will take several more months and threatens the passage of the new Illegal Migration Bill, which aims to see small boat migrants detained and deported without asylum claims being considered.

Addressing the Commons, Ms Braverman insisted “the British people will no longer indulge the polite fiction that we have a duty or infinite capacity to support everyone in the world who is fleeing persecution”, adding: “It is unfair on those who play by the rules and who want to see an asylum system that is fit for purpose.”

Key Points

• Suella Braverman doubles down on asylum deal

• Rishi Sunak vows to do ‘whatever is necessary’ to stop small boats

• Court of Appeal rules Rwanda deal is ‘unlawful'

Court of Appeal rules Government’s Rwanda policy is unlawful

11:27 , Holly Evans

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Government’s plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful. Three judges have overturned a High Court judgement that previously said the African nation could be considered a “safe third country”.

Lord Chief Justice Burnett, who heard the appeal with Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justic Underhill in April, concluded that deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda mean there is a “real risk” of asylum seekers being returned to their home country or facing persecution.

Lawyers for some of the individuals selected for deportation had argued that the High Court had showed “excessive deference” to assurances made by the Rwandan authorities that they would “provide a sufficient guarantee to protect relocated asylum-seekers” from a risk of inhumane treatment.

Judges took ‘no view’ on political merits of Rwanda policy

11:31 , Holly Evans

Lord Burnett said the court reached its conclusion on the law and took “no view whatsoever” about the political merits of the policy.

He added: “The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful.

“Finally, the Court of Appeal makes clear that its decision implies no view whatever about the political merits or otherwise of the Rwanda policy.

“Those are entirely a matter for the Government, on which the court has nothing to say.

Judges concluded Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims was ‘inadequate’

11:34 , Holly Evans

Lord Burnett, who disagreed with the other two judges and concurred with the High Court’s ruling, added: “That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement, inadequate.

“The court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended to address any defects in its asylum processes.

“However, the majority believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the proposed removals.

“In consequence sending anyone to Rwanda would constitute a breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with which Parliament has required that the Government must comply.”

Threat of deportation ‘causing huge distress, anxiety and trauma’ to asylum seekers

11:35 , Holly Evans

In a statement after the ruling, Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said: “We are relieved that the Court of Appeal has ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for people who claim asylum. However, we’re disappointed that they have not concluded that the overall policy is unlawful.”

“Let’s remember that the UK made an international commitment under the Refugee Convention to provide a safe haven for those fleeing for their lives who seek protection on our soil. This is a source of pride for British people. We must not now turn our backs on this commitment and on the men, women and children from countries like Sudan and Afghanistan who come to us for safety.”

“The threat of being sent to Rwanda has been causing huge distress, anxiety and trauma to those we work with, who have already been through so much. We hope that the Government will take this opportunity to rethink its approach, which would cause great human suffering and damage the UK’s reputation as a country that values human rights and offers those claiming asylum a fair hearing on British soil.”

“Treating people seeking safety like human cargo and shipping them off to another country is a policy that is both unprincipled and unworkable.”

“The Home Office itself this week admitted that it has no evidence that its punitive policies will have a deterrent effect. This is an exorbitantly expensive project that may make headlines but will do absolutely nothing to sort out the very real problems in our asylum system.”

“Instead of pursuing impracticable and costly legislation and policies, the Government should now focus on operating an orderly, humane

11:38 , Holly Evans

Campaigners called on Home Secretary Suella Braverman to abandon plans to send migrants to Rwanda, describing it as an “unworkable and unethical fever dream of a policy”.

Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, said: “This verdict is some rare good news in an otherwise bleak landscape for human rights in the UK. Hopefully, it will be respected by the government and we can consign this cruel and inhumane proposal to the history books.

“The Home Secretary should now abandon this unworkable and unethical fever dream of a policy and focus her efforts on fixing our broken and neglected migration system.

“This verdict presents the Government with an opportunity to change course. Rather than treating human beings like cargo it can ship elsewhere, it should be focusing on ending the hostile environment towards refugees and asylum seekers.”

Charity Asylum Aid says ruling is ‘vindication of the importance of the Rule of Law’

11:40 , Holly Evans

Charity Asylum Aid, which brought the challenge alongside several asylum seekers, described the Court of Appeal’s ruling as a “vindication of the importance of the Rule of Law and basic fairness when fundamental rights are at stake.”

Alison Pickup, the charity’s director, said: “We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has upheld the argument that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers.

“While we are disappointed that the court has held that the process can be made fair, we are pleased that it has not upheld the High Court’s judgment and has made it clear that the Government needs to ensure that Home Office officials give people more time when they need it.

“Basic standards of fairness and decency require that individuals are told why a decision as significant as sending them to a country thousands of miles away is being made, and have a fair chance to set out their case on all aspects of that decision.

“The Court of Appeal’s judgment is a vindication of the importance of the Rule of Law and basic fairness when fundamental rights are at stake.”

Timeline of government’s policy to deport migrants

11:42 , Holly Evans

The Rwanda deal to deport asylum-seekers has been ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal, after judges concluded it is not a safe country to receive those claiming refuge.

Flights will remain suspended ahead of an expected government appeal of the decision at the UK’s Supreme Court.

The ruling reverses a High Court decision in December that ruled Suella Braverman’s deal was lawful. That followed a three-day appeal hearing in April with lawyers representing six men chosen for deportation arguing that the Home Office had breached legal duties and had failed to investigate a similar deal between the African nation and Israel.

This is how events leading up to this point unfolded, starting with the announcement of the scheme in April 2022.

Rwanda asylum plan: Timeline of government’s policy to deport migrants

Ruling raises possible need to quit ECHR, says senior Tory

11:43 , Holly Evans

Former Tory cabinet minister Simon Clarke said the court ruling was “deeply disappointing”.

He suggested it should pave the way for the UK to quit the European Convention of Human Rights overseen by the European Court of Human Rights.

“We have to be able to control our borders. If the ECHR continues to forestall this, we have to revisit the question of our membership,” he tweeted.

Rwandan Government takes ‘issue’ with Court of Appeal ruling

11:47 , Holly Evans

The Rwandan Government said it took “issue” with the Court of Appeal’s ruling as it described the east African nation as “one of the safest countries in the world”.

Government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo said: “While this is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees. 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.

“We make a significant contribution to dealing with the impacts of the global migration crisis. Rwandans know what it means to be forced to flee home, and to make a new life in a new country.

“As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans. Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this.

“Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. The broken global migration system is failing to protect the vulnerable, and empowering criminal smuggling gangs at an immeasurable human cost.

“When the migrants do arrive, we will welcome them and provide them with the support they’ll need to build new lives in Rwanda.”

‘Government should completely abandon Rwanda deal’, says charity

11:49 , Holly Evans

In response to the Court of Appeal ruling, Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s Chief Executive, said: “This judgment is very welcome, but it can’t undo the enormous suffering, harm and expense already caused by the Government’s long and reckless pursuit of a patently unjust scheme.

“This totally misguided bid to expel people seeking asylum thousands of miles away to Rwanda - a country with its own asylum and human rights challenges - was always an expensive and deeply cruel injustice.

“The Rwanda deal is a cynical distraction from the pressing need to radically reform our own chronically failing asylum procedures - which are slow, increasingly chaotic and leave thousands of people stranded in limbo for years.

“The Government should now completely abandon the Rwanda deal - and any others like it - before doing any more damage to our international reputation or to the people threatened by such plans.

“Shamefully, the Government is still trying to force legislation through Parliament to compel it to expel from the UK almost everyone who may ever seek asylum here.

“While this judgment may mean that ministers must rethink their plan to use Rwanda for that purpose, they should take this as the opportunity to stop playing politics with people’s lives, scrap the reckless immigration bill and get down to the serious task of fairly and efficiently deciding the claims of the still relatively few people who seek asylum here.”

Labour said the high court judgment “shows Rishi Sunak has no plan” to fix the small boats crisis.

11:52 , Holly Evans

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper: “Ministers were forced to admit this week that it will cost £169,000 to send each person to Rwanda on top of the £140m of taxpayers’ money they have already spent.

“Now the court has found that ministers didn’t even do the basic work to make sure the scheme was legal or safe.

“Time and again, ministers have gone for gimmicks instead of getting a grip, and slogans instead of solutions, while the Tory boats chaos has got worse. The Rwanda scheme is unworkable, unethical and extortionate, a costly and damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking.

“They should now put that money into Labour’s plan to go after the criminal gangs, clear the asylum backlog and stop dangerous boat crossings that are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk.”

Asylum Aid law firm ‘delighted’ with Court of Appeal ruling

11:57 , Holly Evans

Tessa Gregory, a partner at law firm Leigh Day which represented Asylum Aid, said: “We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Rwanda removals process is unlawful on grounds of safety.

“Although it did not find in favour of Asylum Aid’s claim that the fast-track process was also unlawful it recognised problems around the shortcut process, including that lawyers are needed and representations by individuals on general issues can and should be made.

“There are clear deficiencies in the process, some of which have been recognised by the court and Asylum Aid will consider whether it is necessary to appeal.”

12:00 , Holly Evans

In the judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos said: “It falls to this court to consider the ‘safety of Rwanda issues’ afresh. In deciding those issues, special regard should be paid by the court to the views of the UNHCR (the UN refugee agency) on the grounds of its special expertise and the fact that the subject matter is within its remit.”

He added there were “substantial grounds” to think that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda faced “real risks” of torture or inhuman treatment, or that their claims for asylum would not be properly determined in the east African nation.

The judge continued: “That is the consequence of the historical record described by the UNHCR, the significant concerns of the UNHCR itself, and the factual realities of the current asylum process in Rwanda.

“In practice, Rwanda can only deliver on its good faith assurances if it has control mechanisms and systems in place to enable it to do so.

“Both history and the current situation demonstrate that those mechanisms have not yet been delivered. They may in the future be delivered but they are not, on the evidence, there now.”

Liberal Democrats call for Home Secretary to ‘accept reality’

12:05 , Holly Evans

The Liberal Democrats called on Home Secretary Suella Braverman to “accept reality” over the Rwanda plan.

The party’s home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: “Not only is the Conservatives’ Rwanda asylum plan immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers, but the Court of Appeal has also now said it is unlawful, too.

“It will do nothing to stop dangerous Channel crossings – and it runs roughshod over the UK’s legal obligations, as the courts have confirmed.

“The Home Secretary needs to finally accept reality. Instead of wasting even more taxpayer money by defending this plan in the courts, the Home Secretary should scrap her vanity project and focus on tackling the asylum backlog created by her own Government’s incompetence.”

Rishi Sunak’s statement on Rwanda ruling

13:03 , Holly Evans

Following the ruling, Rishi Sunak tweeted: “It is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs.”

He said that while he respects the court, he “fundamentally” disagrees with their conclusion and confirmed that the Goverment would be seeking to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Charity says ruling is ‘victory for reason and compassion’

12:10 , Holly Evans

Sonya Sceats, Chief Executive of Freedom from Torture, said: “This is a victory for reason and compassion. We are delighted that the appeal verdict has affirmed what the caring people of this country already knew: the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, it flies in the face of the laws of this country.”

“Every day in Freedom from Torture’s therapy rooms, torture survivors confide in our clinicians their fears this expulsion scheme has generated amongst people seeking safety in this country. As we outlined in our intervention in the Court of Appeal, this dirty deal with Rwanda does too little to identify and protect survivors and other vulnerable groups and would see them placed at risk of further harm.

“Sunak’s inhumane policy has sparked anger across the UK, from protesters on the streets to faith leaders and cultural icons. If he is serious about offering sanctuary to those most in need, he should focus on rebuilding a fair and compassionate asylum system, one that welcomes and offers a fair hearing to refugees no matter how they arrive.”

Lawyers for asylum seekers appealed ruling on safety grounds

12:17 , Holly Evans

At the appeal hearing in April, lawyers for the group of asylum seekers argued that the High Court “showed excessive deference” to the Home Office’s assessment that assurances made by the Rwandan authorities “provide a sufficient guarantee to protect relocated asylum-seekers” from a risk of torture or inhumane treatment.

The three appeal judges were told that material provided by the Rwandan authorities “lacked credibility, consisting of blanket denials and clear contradictions”.

Judge says Home Office had ignored ‘past and present situation’ in Rwanda

12:19 , Lizzie Dearden

Judges declaring the British government’s plans to forcibly deport small boat migrants to Rwanda unlawful made a series of scathing findings.

A 161-page ruling said the country was not safe for the purpose of receiving asylum seekers, and that ministers were wrong to rely on unevidenced assurances that “seriously deficient” processes would be improved.

A judge said the Home Office had ignored “the past and the present situation”, and failed to probe the disappearance and death of migrants sent to Rwanda under a previous deal with Israel.

The court said the government had responded to damning evidence from the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) with “not very satisfactory” statements that were “dependent on information supplied by the government of Rwanda” itself.

Lord Justice Underhill said: “Perhaps as the result of the pressure of the timetable to which they were required to work, I believe that the [Home Office] officials in question were too ready to accept assurances which were unparticularised or unevidenced or the details of which were unexplored.”

Sir Geoffrey Vos, who also decided the case, said the government had ignored or sidelined evidence including the mass shooting of refugees by Rwandan police during a 2018 protest and the disastrous Israel deal.

“I do not accept that the past and the present can either be ignored or side-lined as the home secretary suggests,” he added. “The likelihood of promises being performed must, anyway in part, be judged by reference to what has happened in the past and the capacity and capability of the entity making the promises to keep them.”

Rishi Sunak confirms Government will seek to appeal ruling at UK Supreme Court

12:30 , Holly Evans

Rishi Sunak said he respects the Court of Appeal’s judgement on the Rwanda policy but “disagreed fundamentally” with its conclusions.

The prime minister said he “strongly believes” Rwanda is a safe country, confirming that the government will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister Rishi 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 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.”

Refugee charity calls for Government to end small boat crossings by offering safe passages to UK

12:40 , Holly Evans

Responding to the Court of Appeal’s judgement on the Government’s Rwanda policy, Steve Smith MBE, the CEO of refugee charity Care4Calais who brought an earlier legal challenge against the policy, said:

“We have always believed that the Government’s Rwanda policy is cruel, immoral and that it is not a safe country to remove refugees too. We are immensely relieved to hear that the Court of Appeal agrees.

“Survivors of war, torture and human rights abuses have had great pain and torment inflicted on them by our Government threatening them with removal to Rwanda. Amongst the people we are supporting there have been attempted suicides and self-harm due to the fear caused by the Rwanda policy. Now, after all that trauma, judges have ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country.

“After today’s judgement, it’s time the Government abandoned its brutal Rwanda policy and any alternative proposal to shirk the UK’s responsibility for people seeking asylum. Instead, they should offer safe passage to refugees in Calais as the effective and compassionate way to put smugglers out of business, end small boat crossings and save lives.”

Rwanda deal ‘impractical’ and ‘destructive’, says charity

12:48 , Holly Evans

The Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) UK also renewed calls for the Government to end plans to send migrants to Rwanda in the wake of the court ruling.

Sarah Teather, JRS UK’s director, said: “Plans to forcibly send men, women and children seeking sanctuary here to Rwanda are inhuman. They are also completely impractical. They are destructive, and mean slamming the door shut on refugees, denying our duty to offer refugees sanctuary.

“We welcome this judgment as we continue to resist this cruel policy in solidarity with refugees.”

Downing Street to ‘look carefully’ at issues in Court of Appeal ruling

12:54 , Holly Evans

Downing Street said the Government would “look carefully” at the issues raised in the Court of Appeal judgment.

Asked whether the Rwanda policy could be toughened up to provide further “assurances” that migrants flown to the country would not be sent back home, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “Yes, so obviously this is a very detailed judgment and the Lord Chief Justice dissents with other judges.

“We need to go through that carefully and consider what if anything if is appropriate in our approach. Obviously some of these issues we’d want to put before the Supreme Court should we be given permission to do that. I’m not going to pre-empt that.”

Government ‘remain committed’ to Rwanda policy

12:56 , Holly Evans

Downing Street said it will “remain committed” to its Rwanda policy and still believes it is the “right approach” despite the Court of Appeal ruling.

Asked whether Rishi Sunak had yet spoken to Rwandan president Paul Kagame about the decision, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “Obviously the judgment’s only just come in. They have spoken before.

“We remain committed to the Rwandan migration partnership. We remain of the view that it is the right approach.”

Suella Braverman ‘determined’ to stop small boats and will seek permission to appeal ruling

13:17 , Holly Evans

In a statement, Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: “The British people want to stop the boats, and so does this Government.

“That’s what I am determined to deliver and I won’t take a backward step from that. We need innovative solutions to smash the business model of the people smuggling gangs, which is why we formed this partnership with Rwanda.

“The Court of Appeal have been clear that the policy of relocating asylum seekers to a safe third country for the processing of their claims is in line with the Refugee Convention.

“While we are disappointed with their ruling in relation to Rwanda’s asylum system, I will be seeking permission to appeal this.

“I remain fully committed to this policy as does the Rwandan government.”

Downing Street ‘can’t put a timetable’ on deportations

13:25 , Holly Evans

Downing Street refused to say whether it still believes any migrants will be sent to Rwanda before the next election.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said he “can’t put a timetable on that” amid the long-running legal battle.

“I can’t put a timetable on that I’m afraid. As I’ve said we are seeking leave to appeal so in effect we are still proceeding with a legal process,” he said.

‘Government well aware of crucial deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum system’, says lawyers

13:45 , Holly Evans

Duncan Lewis Solicitors, which represented seven of the asylum seekers who were due to be on the first flight to Rwanda in June last year, said: “Government officials were well aware of the crucial deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum system from the inception of this policy.

“The Secretary of State glossed over and failed to properly examine the adequacy of Rwanda’s asylum system. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is not above the law, and today the Court of Appeal has today ruled that these material deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum system render removals unlawful.”

‘Jesus Christ returning as Tory leader’ couldn’t win election, says ex-No 10 adviser

13:55 , Holly Evans

Even the returning Messiah could not win the next general election for Conservative party, according to a former No 10 adviser.

“If Jesus Christ returned to earth today and put the theology aside and becomes leader of the Conservative party – the Conservative party is doomed at the next election,” said Tory pundit Tim Montgomerie.

He told BBC Politics Live that there’s now nothing the Tories an do to turn its “fortunes around” – but will continue to “play the card” of promising to stop the boats.

Partnership with France over Channel crossings has seen ‘a big improvement’, says official

14:12 , Holly Evans

Downing Street said increased partnership with French authorities over Channel crossings has resulted in “a big improvement” despite figures suggesting nearly 11,000 people have made the journey this year.

“The numbers are still down on where they were in previous years,” the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said.

Just over 11,800 people had made the crossing by June 22 last year.

Asked whether the ruling would thwart Rishi Sunak’s plan to stop the boats, the official said: “Clearly we now need to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. I don’t know the exact time that will take. I think the judges today made clear they would want that to be promptly, as would we. But this is an important element but it is one element of our work.”

Rwandan government says it ‘takes issue’ with ruling and remains committed to deal

14:20 , Lizzie Dearden

Yolande Makolo, a spokesperson for the government of Rwanda, defended the country’s record accepting people fleeing conflict in neighbouring countries, and recovering from its horrific genocide.

“While this is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees,” she said.

“Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. The broken global migration system is failing to protect the vulnerable, and empowering criminal smuggling gangs at an immeasurable human cost. When the migrants do arrive, we will welcome them and provide them with the support they’ll need to build new lives in Rwanda”.

Now the Court of Appeal has ruled it unlawful, what happens next with the Rwanda deal?

14:40 , Lizzie Dearden

Although the government lost the latest stage of the long-running legal battle over the Rwanda deal, it is not the end of the case.

Suella Braverman is appealing the Court of Appeal’s ruling to the Supreme Court, which will have the final say - and flights remain on hold in the meantime.

The prime minister announced the move two hours after the damning judgment, saying he respected the Court of Appeal but “fundamentally disagreed with their conclusions”.

“I strongly believe the Rwanda government have provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum seekers relocated under the policy would be wrongly returned to third countries,” Rishi Sunak added.

“Rwanda is a safe country … we will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.”

The process could take several months and throws the new Illegal Migration Bill into doubt, because new powers to detain and deport all small boat migrants depended on the Rwanda deal working. No other agreements to receive asylum seekers are in place.

Read the full story here

Sir Keir Starmer labels Rwanda deal a ‘headline-grabbing gimmick’

14:48 , Holly Evans

Asked about the Court of Appeal ruling during a visit to Selby, Sir Keir Starmer said: “Labour’s got a plan to stop the boats and that involves going after the criminal gangs that are driving this vile trade, and dealing with processing the applications for asylum, which are at an all-time low.

“The Government hasn’t got a plan. It’s had one gimmick, one headline-grabbing gimmick, Rwanda, which has already cost the taxpayer £140 million without anybody having gone to Rwanda.

“What the court’s judgment shows is they’ve spent that £140 million of taxpayers’ money without even doing the basics to see whether the scheme was really fit for purpose.”

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: “We’ve had more Conservative home secretaries in Rwanda than we’ve had asylum seekers sent there.

“They’ve done slogans and they think that’s what people want to hear. It’s not working, it’s not going to work, they were told it wasn’t going to work, and they’ve wasted millions of pounds and put people in hotels up and down the UK as opposed to actually tackling the problem.”

More charities call for Government to scrap Rwanda policy

15:04 , Holly Evans

Laura Kyrke-Smith, Executive Director of International Rescue Committee UK, said: “This latest ruling is yet another reason the Government should abandon the Rwanda Plan and its disastrous “Illegal Migration” Bill.

“By the Government's own assessment, published earlier this week, there is no evidence that these expensive deterrence initiatives will achieve their aim of “stopping the boats”.

“ What will work to reduce dangerous journeys, end the indefinite use of hotels, and uphold the right to asylum, is investing the money in our own asylum system and scaling up safe routes.”

Watch: Suella Braverman says she ‘respectfully disagrees’ with Rwanda ruling

15:25 , Holly Evans

YouGov polling shows that even before Court of Appeal ruling, 56% of Britons thought it was unlikely any migrants would ever be deported to Rwanda

15:38 , Lizzie Dearden

Suella Braverman addresses parliament on ruling

16:16 , Lizzie Dearden

Suella Braverman has doubled down on the government’s troubled pledge to “stop the boats” in a statement to parliament.

She sought to play down the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the Rwanda scheme is unlawful, and that it is not a safe country for receiving asylum seekers forcibly deported from the UK.

The home secretary inaccurately claimed that judges’ concerns were “not that conditions while in Rwanda would be unsafe, but that there was a possibility that they could be returned to other countries”.

She added: “It is therefore simply incorrect to say that the court has found that conditions in Rwanda make it unsafe for individuals there.”

But the lengthy judgment made extensive reference to a 2018 incident where Rwandan police had shot refugees protesting about food shortages dead, and a previous deal with Israel that saw deported migrants disappear and die.

It said the British government itself had acknowledged that Rwanda is “a one-party state which reacts unfavourably to dissent”, and had been “too ready to accept assurances” from its government, while ignoring events and concrete evidence from “the past and the present”.

Ms Braverman told parliament the judgment was “disappointing” and that the government would appeal to the Supreme Court.

“We hope that the process will be swift,” she added. “We have a strong relationship with Rwanda and both sides remain committed to the policy.”

The home secretary expanded the deal, which has never been voted on by parliament, to encompass trafficking victims as well as asylum seekers during a visit to Rwanda in March.

The Independent revealed that Ms Braverman did not formally disclose her prior links to the country’s government when she took up her post, despite leading a charity training Rwandan government lawyers for five years.

She resigned as director of the Africa Justice Foundation weeks before being elected as a Conservative MP in the 2015 general election.

Watch live as Braverman delivers statement to Commons

16:29 , Andy Gregory

Suella Braverman told off by Speaker for using statement to attack Labour

16:30 , Lizzie Dearden

Suella Braverman has been told off by the Speaker of the House of Commons for using the debate following her statement on the ruling to repeatedly attack Labour.

“This isn’t about the Labour Party, this is about what the government is doing,” Lindsay Hoyle said, telling her to stick to the subject of the statement.

Shortly before, Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, told parliament the judgment shows the prime minister and home secretary “have no plan to fix the Tories’ small boat chaos and their only policy is now completely unravelling”.

She said the government had not “even do the basic work to make sure the Rwanda scheme was legal or safe” and called it a “costly and damaging distraction from the action that should be taken”.

Ms Cooper accused ministers of “wasting people’s time on ramping up the rhetoric rather than coming up with solutions”, and letting a record asylum backlog grow.

She pointed to an excerpt from the Court of Appeal judgment where the Lord Chief Justice called it “political hyperbole” to say that Rwanda would become a “destination for thousands of asylum seekers” from the UK.

“The evidence before the Divisional Court was that the physical capacity for housing asylum seekers in Rwanda was limited to 100; that of the 47 originally identified for removal the Home Office expected in fact to remove about 10,” he added.

Suella Braverman told it could ‘take months’ for the Supreme Court to decide the case

16:39 , Lizzie Dearden

The home secretary told parliament the Home Office would not be serving its formal request to appeal the Court of Appeal judgment until 6 July, and would afterwards be “in the court’s hands”.

Conservative MP Mark Francois had asked if the government could speed up the process, adding: “Given legal procedural issues it could now take months for the case to reach the Supreme Court, let alone for a judgment to be handed down. In the meantime, the boats will keep coming.”

Delay upon delay for the government’s small boats policy

16:59 , Lizzie Dearden

The Court of Appeal ruling is just the latest in several delays relating to the government’s wider policy on small boats.

Rishi Sunak’s vow to house asylum seekers on barges and military bases has also faced repeated delays, with a legal challenge by affected local councils being heard at the High Court next month.

The first barge, which the government claimed would house 500 asylum seekers, had been due to arrive in Portland this month but remains in Cornwall undergoing refitting and checks.

And last night, the House of Lords passed several amendments to the flagship Illegal Migration Bill, which the government claims will give it the power to detain and deport all small boat migrants.

The House of Commons will now have to vote on those amendments and send the changes back in parliamentary “ping-pong”. And even if the bill is passed in its current form, without the Rwanda deal, the government has nowhere to deport asylum seekers to.

Home secretary dodges questions on Rwanda costs and a plan B

17:03 , Lizzie Dearden

Suella Braverman has finished being grilled by MPs following her statement on the Court of Appeal ruling.

She refused to directly answer questions on how much more money would be spent on the legal battle, which had cost £1.3m by March, or on an official impact assessment showing that deporting asylum seekers is more expensive than hearing their claims in Britain.

Asked what her plan was if the Rwanda deal cannot go ahead, the home secretary did not outline any other strategy.

She said: “It’s not over yet. This is a Court of Appeal judgment, we’re seeking permission to appeal it and we will await the outcome.

“It is premature to assume this is the end of the policy. We are committed to delivering it.”

Court of Appeal ruling determined “on the basis of evidence”

17:44 , Sam Rkaina

A Court of Appeal ruling which found that Government plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda are unlawful was determined “on the basis of evidence” and the judgment did not support or oppose “any political view”, one of the appeal judges said.

In a 161-page judgment on Thursday, Sir Geoffrey Vos, supported by Lord Justice Underhill, found there were “substantial grounds” to think that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda faced “real risks” of torture or inhuman treatment, or that their claims for asylum would not be properly determined in the east African nation.

The ruling overturned the High Court’s finding that the east African nation could be considered a “safe third country” for asylum seekers.

However, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett – who heard the appeal with the other two judges in April – disagreed, saying he would dismiss the challenge.

In the judgment, Sir Geoffrey said the court needed to look at the situation in Rwanda for asylum seekers alongside the assurances given by the authorities and the agreement between the two countries, the UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP).

He described the MEDP policy as “a politically sensitive one which has attracted significant public and media attention”.

Sir Geoffrey continued: “Notwithstanding that position, the case must be determined on the basis of the evidence and of accepted and familiar principles of public law.

“Nothing in this judgment should be construed as supporting or opposing any political view of the issues.”

‘Deficiencies' in the legal rights of asylum seekers in Rwanda.

18:19 , Sam Rkaina

The judge noted it was accepted the UK Government has “huge experience of diplomatic relations” with the Rwandan authorities.

He also said that Home Office lawyers had argued that “in the light of the detailed guarantees and assurances in the MEDP and the longstanding relationship with Rwanda and its financial and other incentives to perform on its obligations, what happened in the past was of limited, if any, real significance”.

However, Sir Geoffrey disagreed, finding: “I do not accept that the past and the present can either be ignored or side-lined as the Home Office suggests.”

“The likelihood of promises being performed must, anyway in part, be judged by reference to what has happened in the past and the capacity and capability of the entity making the promises to keep them,” the judge added.

In his decision, Sir Geoffrey referred to evidence from the UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, who said there were several deficiencies in the legal rights of asylum seekers in Rwanda.

Court of Appeal was 'concerned with the risk’

18:45 , Sam Rkaina

Sir Geoffrey said the UK Government acknowledges that Rwanda is “a one-party state which reacts unfavourably to dissent”, adding: “It is not an answer to say that Rwanda will have accepted the people sent under the MEDP, because the advanced information they will have about them will be limited and they may form adverse political opinions once there.”

Lord Justice Underhill, who largely supported Sir Geoffrey’s conclusions, said the Court of Appeal was “concerned with the risk to the group as a whole to whom the asylum policy is intended to be applied”.

The judge said there was “evidence of a culture of, at best, insufficient appreciation by Directorate General of Immigration and Emigration officials of Rwanda’s obligations under the refugee convention, and at worst a deliberate disregard for those obligations”.

Lord Justice Underhill said the UNHCR had alleged that the Rwandan authorities were biased against asylum seekers from the Middle East and Afghanistan, calling the figures “statistically frail”.

He continued: “But I do not believe they can be disregarded, particularly when taken with its evidence about the views expressed by senior Government of Rwanda officials that they should have sought asylum nearer to home.”

‘No evidence of bad faith' in Rwanda

19:00 , Sam Rkaina

The appeal judge said there was no evidence that showed the Rwandan government has entered into the agreements “in bad faith”.

He continued: “There is no reason to suppose that it does not wish to ensure that relocated individuals have their asylum claims determined fairly and effectively.

“But aspiration and reality do not necessarily coincide.”

“I have reached the conclusion that the Rwandan system for refugee status determination was not, as at the relevant date, reliably fair and effective,” Lord Justice Underhill concluded.

However, in his dissenting judgment, Lord Burnett said the High Court had not considered whether it was “safe” for “substantial” numbers of people to be immediately sent to Rwanda.

He continued: “Similarly, the voluminous papers in this case identify hypothetical special problems it is said that some groups of people would face.

“But we are not considering whether it would be ‘safe’ for every conceivable type of person to be sent to Rwanda.”

He also said: “In much of the political hyperbole which surrounded the announcement of the Rwanda policy there was talk of Rwanda, within a few years, being a destination for thousands of asylum seekers who arrived irregularly in the United Kingdom.”

‘Only 100' asylum seekers could be housed in Rwanda

19:15 , Sam Rkaina

However, Lord Burnett said that the High Court was told that the physical capacity for housing asylum seekers in Rwanda was limited to 100.

The most senior judge in England and Wales later said that there would be both formal and “informal” monitoring of anyone who was deported to Rwanda.

As well as the formal monitoring described in the agreement itself and arrangements by the British High Commission, Lord Burnett continued: “With the assistance of lawyers in England, those unwilling to be removed to Rwanda would have been engaged in resisting on all available grounds.

“In referring to ‘informal’ monitoring I have in mind the reality that anyone removed to Rwanda, with their internet connected mobile phone, will be in a strong position to raise any personal concerns that they are not being treated in accordance with the agreement.”

The judge also said that while there was “certainly evidence of poor practice” in the Rwandan asylum system, “there will, no doubt, be changes in respect of those considered under the agreement with the United Kingdom”.

“But the question is whether the system as a whole can be relied upon to deliver appropriate outcomes,” he added.

Lord Burnett concluded that the people bringing the appeal “fall short” in proving there are substantial grounds to believe there is a “real risk” they would face torture or inhuman treatment in Rwanda.

Tory MPS press ministers to take urgent steps to allow plan to happen

19:30 , Sam Rkaina

Conservative MPs have pressed ministers to take urgent steps to allow the UK’s planned Rwanda removal scheme to proceed.

Former ministers Sir Edward Leigh and Mark Francois suggested the UK seeks a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to assist deportation efforts.

The remarks came after judges at the Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, ruled Government plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda are unlawful.

Sir Edward told the Commons: “What we’ve been suggesting for two years in the Common Sense Group is the Refugee Convention is made for a different world, as was the human rights convention, and we simply have to have a derogation so that we can detain people and then deport them, and we’ll never solve this problem otherwise.”

Home Secretary Suella Braverman replied: “He makes a powerful point. Last year we saw the operation of the Strasbourg court operate in a way that was opaque, that was irregular, which was unfair frankly when it comes to the will of the British people.”

She said the Government was legislating “to avoid that scenario repeating itself”.

‘The boats will keep coming all summer'

19:45 , Sam Rkaina

Mr Francois added: “It could now take months for the case to reach the Supreme Court, let alone for a judgment to be handed down. In the meantime, the boats will keep coming, now probably all summer.”

He asked if anything could be done to “expedite the Supreme Court’s decision in this case”, and added “the only way we will ultimately solve this problem is to achieve a derogation from the ECHR”.

Ms Braverman said: “The court sets the timetables and we will follow any timeline they set.”

States signed up to the ECHR may, in exceptional circumstances, have the opportunity to derogate from their obligations.

In 2022, the European Court of Human Rights granted an injunction, via rule 39, that effectively grounded a flight sending asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda – which renewed calls from some Tory MPs to pull out of the ECHR.

Ms Braverman hopes the Illegal Migration Bill will limit the impact of legal challenges.

Danny Kruger, Conservative MP for Devizes, suggested the Government might be helped in its appeal by securing a commitment from the Rwandan government that they will not return asylum seekers to places where they might be persecuted.

Ms Braverman, in her reply, said: “We will always review our arrangements and we’ll always ensure they’re in the best possible state they can be.”

‘This is fundamentally a question of democracy'

20:00 , Sam Rkaina

Conservative MP Lia Nici said: “I spoke with a constituent in Victoria Street, Grimsby, a few weeks ago and he said to me that ‘we will never send illegal migrants back to Rwanda because the left-wing establishment will never allow it to happen’. Is he right?”

Ms Braverman reiterated the Government had “made a promise to the British people to stop the boats”, adding: “I believe we will deliver on that promise and we will get there in the end.”

Conservative MP Aaron Bell said: “I believe this is fundamentally a question of democracy. The British people have repeatedly voted for control of immigration and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme expect us to stop the boats.”

Conservative MP Philip Hollobone (Kettering) told the Commons his constituents are “completely fed up with the courts frustrating the Rwanda plan”.

Lib Dems condemn ‘dog whistle agenda'

20:15 , Sam Rkaina

Opposition MPs criticised the Government’s approach, with Liberal Democrat former leader Tim Farron accusing the Home Secretary of “incompetence” and said she “seeks to distract us by playing games like this”.

The SNP’s Patrick Grady said: “The Home Secretary says that she is disappointed by the High Court’s decision, but in fact is she not being a bit coy?

“Is she not actually delighted? Is this not exactly what the Government wanted all along? A fight with the judiciary, a fight with the House of Lords, triangulating the official opposition.

“Doesn’t this play straight into their dog whistle agenda and the human rights of people fleeing war, oppression and famine are simply an afterthought?”

22:08 , Sam Rkaina

We’re pausing our live coverage of the Rwanda plan for the day but keep checking independent.co.uk for the latest updates.