UK Court Of Appeal Ruling On Rwanda

The UK Court of Appeals ruled against the plan to send people seeking asylum to Rwanda, stating that Rwanda's asylum system is not reliably fair and effective. The court cited five key reasons, including the brief and perfunctory manner in which asylum interviews are conducted and the lack of legal assistance for asylum seekers. The court also expressed concerns about the safety of asylum seekers in Rwanda and the potential political influence on judges. The ruling is considered a victory for refugees and organizations supporting them, and it means that asylum seekers in the UK will not be sent to Rwanda for now. The court's decision shows a determination to provide more scrutiny to decisions made by the executive. Hello and welcome to this episode of the Diary of a Lawyer and today I want to cover just the legal issues around the UK Court of Appeals ruling in relation to Rwanda. Now the Court of Appeal is the second most high court in the land which sits under the Supreme Court and it ruled against the plan to send people to Rwanda which is yet another hurdle, legal hurdle to the scheme. Now this was announced, the scheme was announced around April 22 and that people's cases could be determined in Rwanda and that they would eventually resettle here if successful and the number of claims made that in terms of advantages and obviously clearly there's advantages according to campaigners but I'm focusing on the legal context. Now after a series of legal challenges the European Court of Human Rights intervened and stopped the fast flights from taking off. Around December 2022 the High Court found that the Rwanda policy was lawful and now the Court of Appeal has overturned that decision. Now the main question, the legal question for the Court was whether Rwanda officials would accurately and fairly assess the asylum claims people are sent there from the UK. The claimants, the legal claimants which is a group of around 10 folks under the organisation Asylum Aid argue that the Rwandan legal system would put genuine refugees at risk of being erroneously returned to countries where they would face persecution. Two out of three judges agreed finding that Rwanda's current asylum system is not reliably fair and effective and they cited five key reasons. One asylum interviews are conducted in a brief and perfunctory manner which could prevent a person from being able to fully explain their case. Rwanda's Committee to Determine Refugee Status does not allow lawyers to make arguments on behalf of a person to help explain why they should be granted asylum. Number three, local non-government organisations do not have capacity to provide asylum seekers with legal assistance throughout the process. And number four, according to the Court, Rwandan officials deciding applications do not have sufficient skill and experience to make reliable decisions partly due to a lack of effective training and number five, the Court held that judges in Rwanda may be susceptible to apparent political influence and reluctant to overturn decisions not to grant asylum. So those are the five reasons. The Court also noted that there was nothing to indicate that Rwanda was not trying its best to determine asylum claims fairly and Lord Justice Underhill observed that, quote, aspiration and reality did not necessarily coincide, end quote. The majority judges also noted concerns about the safety of asylum seekers in Rwanda including the extent to which Rwandan authorities are tolerant of protest and dissent. For example, they said it was widely reported that in 2018 Rwandan police shot and killed 12 refugees who were protesting the reduction in their food rations. Now that calls the pause for thought. Twelve refugees were shot dead whilst protesting for reduction in their food rations. Serge of Rebos found that these concerns were irrelevant to considering whether Rwanda was a safe third country, quote, unquote. Also all three judges agreed with the High Court's decision on other grounds including that sending asylum seekers to a third country is not necessarily compatible, incompatible with the UN Refugee Convention. I think that needs to be looked at, what it actually says. Now this will no doubt be a worrying finding for critics of government policy who hope the court will reinforce the UK's obligation and international law. I haven't got specific reasoning on that but that was mentioned. The ruling gives the, the judgment is considered a victory for refugees and the organizations that support them and effectively it gives the government license to pass, for now not to pass the burden of refugee protection on poorer countries even if they're currently prevented from sending people to Rwanda for now. And it also means that for now no asylum seekers in the UK will be sent to Rwanda, at least not in the foreseeable future. Now a bit of a background, the proceedings began with seven men being handcuffed, shackled and highly distressed as they're forced on a plane and over the past year many men and women have received letters regarding Rwanda. Now what's the next legal issue? There is a bill which is going through the legislature, the House of Lords, which requires which gives certain powers to the authorities in that regard. But there seems to be academic consensus that there is little or no evidence suggesting that changes in this country's policies have an impact on the Tariq people. The legal developments are a clear signal that the courts are determined to provide more scrutiny and rational scrutiny to decisions made by the decision makers and the executive in particular. So that's just a nutshell of what actually the legal rulings were and just a brief context. It's been widely reported but we focus on the law and the context, not actually on the various arguments or political arguments in this case. Now that's it in a nutshell. Thank you for listening. I'm going to speak again. Thank you, bye.