ANOTHER deflating ruling was issued on the Rwanda deportation plan on Monday, with the Court of Appeal deciding that the flight due to leave on Tuesday evening could go ahead, stating that it could “not interfere” with the original decision. The judges then refused permission for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The policy is intended to deter people from travelling to the UK across the Channel in boats run by smugglers. It is believed by the Home Office that this policy is in the public interest. It is believed that the policy will ultimately save lives and protect potential trafficking victims.

However, the policy does nothing to target and discipline the traffickers – but does everything to further victimise those that are so desperate that they rely on traffickers to bring them to a safer country.

READ MORE: What does the Home Office have to do to prove it has gone too far?

Numerous bodies have stated their disapproval of the policy. During the legal proceedings, Raza Husain QC pointed to examples of protests by refugees in Rwanda against food ration cuts in 2018, and that “12 individuals were killed, 66 were arrested and some remain detained”.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is “concerned that persons of concern relocated from the UK to Rwanda may be at significant risk of detention and treatment not in accordance with international standards should they express dissatisfaction through protests after arrival”.

According to UNHCR, 2229 people from Rwanda fled the country and applied for asylum in other countries in 2020. Despite these outcries, we apparently need not worry, as the Home Office has stated that Rwanda has a “positive, welcoming attitude to refugees”.

Additionally, every single bishop in the House of Lords has stated that the deportation scheme is “an immoral policy that shames Britain” – even Prince Charles (below) is said to have called the deportation plan “appalling”. When you have a man from the same family that protected Prince Andrew speaking up in such a way, the situation must be worse than we initially perceived.

The National:

Not only is the policy itself deplorable, but its implementation has also proven to be significantly erroneous. The implications of incorrect decisions being made by the Home Office are severe, and so one would expect the Home Secretary to be both careful and thorough when deciding which asylum seekers should be issued a one-way ticket to Rwanda.

The Home Office lacks consideration of the fact that this catch-all policy, whereby all with “inadmissible” asylum claims can be deported, is forcing asylum seekers who have little resources and low finances to bring legal challenges against the decisions. It is one thing to enact laws that affect people in such a way, but to implement them so carelessly and force those who do not have the practical means to challenge them on their own is an entirely separate issue.

If you are to force people on a plane, at least make sure you are doing it correctly.

READ MORE: Home Office Rwanda flight GROUNDED – as First Minister Nicola Sturgeon issues warning

As well as the legal challenges against these deportations being proven to be costly, the execution of this plan is also an extortionate cost for the UK to bear. To date, the UK has paid Rwanda £120 million – and will still make additional payments depending on the number of those deported.

Additionally, the current plans to send a private flight to Rwanda that will board less than ten people will undoubtedly cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. At this point, however, it seems futile to address this issue as the Home Office appears to have a one-track mind. This was seemingly echoed by Tory MP Peter Bone (below), who stated: “Instead of booking 50 people on each flight to Rwanda, book 250 people on it then when they stop half of them from travelling you still have a full flight – come on, get on and send them.”

The National: Peter Bone

I suppose a government so insistent to send “them” to another country would pay a substantial amount to see it through. Bone also stated that it is the fault of “lefty lawyers” that so many of the deportations have been blocked. To this, it feels necessary to highlight that, if the Home Office had implemented this policy correctly, all asylum seekers who were originally intended to be leaving for Rwanda on Tuesday evening would still have their one-way tickets. “Lefty lawyers” would not have had to bring legal challenges or been successful in their challenges against these deportations.

The timeous manner within which the decision by the High Court was made was commended during the appeal case, with Lord Justice Singh stating: “We consider that the judge produced a detailed and careful judgment which is all the more impressive in view of the time constraints under which he had to give it … [in this] urgent and important case.”

Although the time crunch surrounding this case was recognised in a positive light, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights it is explicitly stated that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing”. It feels necessary to question how fair this hearing was, given the fact that it was conducted over only two days, Friday and Monday, during which it had been through the High Court and taken to the Court of Appeal, before a final decision was made with an appeal to the Supreme Court being refused just in time to allow the flight to go ahead Tuesday evening.

READ MORE: UK Government already preparing replacement Rwanda flight after ECHR ruling

On two accounts, the judiciary has agreed with the executive’s policy, despite concerns that implementation of the policy may amount to constructive refoulement, and so breaches Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention. By taking someone from a different country and threatening them with removal to Rwanda as a punishment for travelling to the UK across the Channel, or giving them the option of returning to their home country, some may choose to return to their home country where they will be persecuted, ultimately amounting to constructive refoulement and so is prohibited by the 1951 Convention.

Furthermore, after reaching Rwanda, their claims may wrongly be refused as Rwanda doesn’t apply the normal interpretation of the 1951 Convention. If their claims are wrongly refused, they will be forced to return to their home country which would, again, breach the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention. Albeit this is an issue in and of itself, but the judiciary and the executive are intended to be independent bodies, with the judiciary being able to hold the executive to account. Usually, the current circumstances surrounding this policy would provide a typical example of the judiciary needing to step in and prevent this potential breach of the UK’s legal obligations from materialising. We have yet to see this.

Previously, the Supreme Court made a significant decision regarding questions of national security and the judiciary’s ability to make decisions on these issues in Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021]. When discussing this issue, the Court cited Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2003] and stated that decisions relating to national security should only be decided by the Home Secretary. The rationale behind this is that because the British public must accept the consequences of these decisions, they should be made by those that can be elected or removed from the positions that allow for this.

Essentially, where the Government makes a decision due to national security concerns, this cannot be challenged or overturned by the courts. It is understood that this policy has been implemented to address issues relating to national security and prevent illegal immigrants and people traffickers from entering the UK. Despite the Supreme Court’s decision that the judiciary cannot interfere on decisions relating to national security made by the executive, it seems imperative that they do, especially where the decisions being made may amount to a potential breach of a convention that the UK is bound by. In turn, by failing to intervene and decide against the executive’s policy, the judiciary has essentially allowed a potentially illegal deportation to go ahead.

Any asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will have been failed by the UK and its legal system. The policy and its implementation have been illogical at various points, which has ultimately led to the conclusion that there is currently only one motive on the Home Office’s mind, and it is not to ensure the UK’s immigration and asylum system is fair and just. Instead, to quote Tory MP Peter Bone, to “get on and send them.”

Aman Uppal is a paralegal at Aamer Anwar & Company