Opening their case, the lawyers said the Court of Appeal had been wrong to block the UK government’s plan to remove some asylum seekers to Rwanda amid fears about its record.
Under the policy, anyone who comes to the UK without authorisation from a safe country and seeks asylum - in practice meaning people crossing the English Channel in small boats from France - can be blocked from making a claim for protection and sent to Rwanda instead.
In June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights blocked the departure of the first flight, saying that British judges needed time to fully consider whether the plan was legal.
The government’s lawyers have said that in June the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that Rwanda’s asylum system was so flawed it could send migrants back to their home countries, where they could be mistreated.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the home secretary, told the Supreme Court there was “every reason to conclude” that Rwanda would want the arrangements to work.
Sir James said that while critics of the Rwanda plan had warned about the country’s human rights record, past incidents were not legally relevant.
The original article contains 596 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Opening their case, the lawyers said the Court of Appeal had been wrong to block the UK government’s plan to remove some asylum seekers to Rwanda amid fears about its record.
Under the policy, anyone who comes to the UK without authorisation from a safe country and seeks asylum - in practice meaning people crossing the English Channel in small boats from France - can be blocked from making a claim for protection and sent to Rwanda instead.
In June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights blocked the departure of the first flight, saying that British judges needed time to fully consider whether the plan was legal.
The government’s lawyers have said that in June the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that Rwanda’s asylum system was so flawed it could send migrants back to their home countries, where they could be mistreated.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the home secretary, told the Supreme Court there was “every reason to conclude” that Rwanda would want the arrangements to work.
Sir James said that while critics of the Rwanda plan had warned about the country’s human rights record, past incidents were not legally relevant.
The original article contains 596 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!