The UK Supreme Court recently ruled that the UK government’s Rwanda plan is unlawful. Justices deciding the case held that the policy violated section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), because it is incompatible with human rights standards that the UK is obligated to uphold.
The Rwanda plan, an immigration policy used by the UK government to “stop the boats” of migrants arriving in the UK, works alongside the Illegal Migration Act. It deems that anyone who has illegally arrived in the UK could be “detained and then promptly removed” either to their home country or a “safe third country,” such as Rwanda. A group of asylum seekers filed a legal challenge against the Home Office’s claim that Rwanda was a “safe third country.”
Following an appeal from the Home Office against a Court of Appeal decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s ruling. It found that the policy was unlawful because it violated the Home Secretary’s obligations to make policy in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 3 of the ECHR “prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The court held that there are substantial grounds for believing that the removal of the claimants to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment. Hence, the Home Secretary was in breach of section 6 of the HRA, which states, “It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”
In response to the ruling, newly appointed Home Secretary James Cleverly posted a video statement, reiterating the government’s commitment to “stop the boats.” Prime Minister Rishi Sunak expressed disappointment in the outcome. He commented that while all immigration law must be in line with the HRA and ECHR, he was “prepared to revisit [the UK’s] domestic legal frameworks” if necessary.