The Court of Appeal ruled that the first flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda, which will be deported tomorrow, can proceed.

The appeal court affirmed the original decision of the lower court to allow the one way trip. However, the human rights campaigners appealed the decision.

Tomorrow’s flight to Kigali will be with 11 asylum seekers.

Activists argue that the government’s policy is cruel and will expose migrants to danger.

Advertisement

Officials have stated that the strategy will discourage people from crossing the Channel dangerously from France in small boats operated by smugglers.

The Home Office believes that the removal plan for some illegal migrants in the UK is in public interest and should not be stopped.

Lord Justice Singh, referring to Friday’s High Court decision, said Monday that “we consider that the judge produced an extremely detailed and thoughtful judgment which is all of the more impressive considering the time constraints under the circumstances in which he had it to” in the “urgent and crucial case.”

The Supreme Court refused to allow the judges to appeal against their decision.

Monday’s case was brought by the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), representing around 80% of Border Force personnel, along with charities Care4Calais and Detention Action.

After Asylum Aid, a refugee agency, requested an urgent interim order to prevent the government from flying migrants to Rwanda, a second case is currently being heard at the High Court.

Lawyers representing the charity claimed that the government’s procedure was unfair.

Downing Street stated that the government will continue to plan to fly asylum seekers to Africa on Tuesday.

Official spokesperson for the prime minister stated that they were certain there would be a flight tomorrow. This is still the plan.

Around 130 people were informed Friday that they could be transferred to Rwanda under the new scheme.

Lord Justice Singh suggested that tomorrow’s flight number could be single-digits.

Raza Husain QC was speaking on behalf of two individuals at risk and three organizations challenging the government’s policies. She had previously said that Mr Justice Swift’s decision last Wednesday contained errors of principle or was “plainly incorrect”.

He mainly focused on concerns expressed by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), about Britain’s asylum flights.

The UN refugee agency has a clear position against the flight.

Husain stated that it was “abundantly obvious” that the Home Office considered Rwanda a safe third country for asylum claims. This view was based on a “complete misunderstanding” of UNHCR’s views.

He said that asylum seekers should be considered a vulnerable and underprivileged population.

He said that there are risks to individuals, citing UNHCR examples of protests in Rwanda by refugees against food ration cuts in 2018. He added that 12 people were killed and 66 were detained.

Continue reading:

What’s it like to be a Rwandan refugee?

Asylum seeker claims he would rather die than go to Rwanda

What is the purpose of sending migrants to Rwanda?

The United Nations High Commissioner to Refugees is therefore “concerned about the possibility that persons of concern who have been relocated from the UK to Rwanda could be at substantial risk of being detained and treated not in accordance international standards should they protest after arriving”.

The packed courtroom heard Mr Husain tell them that it is not a crime to enter the UK without the relevant documents.

Prince Charles is reported to have privately called the government’s plans “appalling” .

Boris Johnson, however, has defended the controversial policy and claimed that it was necessary to stop illegal people-smuggling rings on either side.