‘A leading lawyer who sits in the Lords has warned that Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill is “a step toward totalitarianism”.’
The Independent, 18th January 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Members of Parliament in the UK will on 16 and 17 January 2024 debate the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which “gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country” for asylum-seekers. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was manifestly not safe as asylum seekers sent to the country would face a real risk of ill-treatment due to insufficient guarantees against refoulement. The Bill thus aims to use law to determine a factual situation for as long as the law is in force. This blog discusses the risks inherent in creating such a “legal fiction” and how the Bill could be revised to mitigate this risk, before assessing the chances of it becoming law in the currently turbulent political context.’
EIN Blog, 16th January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘The new Rwanda deal proposed by Rishi Sunak’s government is still “not compatible” with international refugee law, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) said. The UNHCR has published its legal assessment of the bill designed to allow Britain to send asylum seekers who arrive illegally in the UK to Rwanda.’
The Independent, 16th January 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Last year’s Supreme Court decision in R (AAA) v Home Secretary – which found the British government’s Rwanda policy to be unlawful – has reignited broader debates about the position of a government which commands a majority in Parliament vis a vis the judiciary, the separation of powers, the extent to which legislating against judicial decisions is constitutionally proper or compatible with the rule of law, and the appropriateness of disapplying sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). This post does not restate or reengage with such topics; substantive attention has already been given by Tom Hickman KC, Professor Mark Elliott, Adam Tucker, Professor Sarah Singer, and Richard Ekins KC et al. Neither does it take a position on the feasibility or desirability of any specific government policy, the continued operation of HRA 1998, or membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Instead, this post will argue that the backlash to and disapproval of the British government’s response to R (AAA) – the introduction of the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which, amongst other measures, allows Parliament to diverge from the Supreme Court’s judgment – neatly evidences the intended effect of New Labour and Lord Derry Irvine’s HRA 1998 system and judicial reforms.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Accommodation used to house tens of thousands of asylum seekers, often the worst in the UK when it comes to damp and mould, will be excluded from a crackdown on landlords managing social housing, the Guardian has learned.’
The Guardian, 15th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The government has admitted that Rwanda still has “issues with its human rights record” despite claims by Rishi Sunak that it is a safe country.’
The Guardian, 11th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Almost 100,000 people seeking asylum in the UK are waiting for a decision amid growing claims that ministers have massaged official figures to try to show that they have cut the backlog of cases.’
The Guardian, 2nd January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The High Court has ruled that the London Borough of Barnet failed to meet its duties towards a victim of child trafficking after he received no specialist support from either the council or the Home Office for several years.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st December 2023
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Expert lawyers who have been involved in the Rwanda case – or supported the challenge to the policy – have described new legislation as potentially setting up a politically explosive fight with both the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights.’
BBC News, 6th December 2023
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An emergency bill published on Wednesday will assert that ministers have the power to ignore judgments that come from Strasbourg while stopping short of leaving or “disapplying” the European convention on human rights.’
The Guardian, 6th October 2023
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘NC v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1379 (22 November 2023). The Court of Appeal has held that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in its application of the “very significant obstacles to integration” test set out in paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules, as then in force, by failing to turn its attention to any evidence beyond an individual’s subjective fear of violence if they were returned to their home country. On proper analysis, the FTT should have focused on the reality of the individual’s daily life if returned; specifically, what steps she could reasonable take to avoid or mitigate her fear, such as by seeking state protection or asking for help from relatives. The appellant, “NC”, maintained that there was no error of law in the FTT’s determination, that the Upper Tribunal was itself in error in concluding that there was and that the FTT’s determination in her favour should stand. However, the SSHD maintained that the Upper Tribunal was correct to find that the FTT had made an error of law and to set aside the FTT’s determination. The focus of the appeal was on the meaning of “very significant obstacles to … integration” as those words appeared in paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) at the material time. The appellant “NC” appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s determination that the FTT had made an error of law when it concluded that she should not be returned to St Kitts and Nevis. NC came to the UK in March 2016, aged 28. She claimed asylum in October 2016.’
EIN Blog, 27th November 2023
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘NC v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1379 (22 November 2023). The Court of Appeal has held that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in its application of the “very significant obstacles to integration” test set out in paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules, as then in force, by failing to turn its attention to any evidence beyond an individual’s subjective fear of violence if they were returned to their home country. On proper analysis, the FTT should have focused on the reality of the individual’s daily life if returned; specifically, what steps she could reasonable take to avoid or mitigate her fear, such as by seeking state protection or asking for help from relatives. The appellant, “NC”, maintained that there was no error of law in the FTT’s determination, that the Upper Tribunal was itself in error in concluding that there was and that the FTT’s determination in her favour should stand. However, the SSHD maintained that the Upper Tribunal was correct to find that the FTT had made an error of law and to set aside the FTT’s determination. The focus of the appeal was on the meaning of “very significant obstacles to … integration” as those words appeared in paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) at the material time. The appellant “NC” appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s determination that the FTT had made an error of law when it concluded that she should not be returned to St Kitts and Nevis. NC came to the UK in March 2016, aged 28. She claimed asylum in October 2016.’
EIN Blog, 27th November 2023
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘All eyes were on the Supreme Court last Wednesday when it handed down its ruling on the lawfulness of the government’s much-criticised Rwanda scheme. The judgment featured a number of important issues (including issues relating to retained EU law) but the key question for the Court was simple: would sending individuals making asylum claims in the UK to Rwanda – to make asylum claims there instead – subject them to a real risk of ill-treatment? The Supreme Court’s answer was that it would. The government’s policy was therefore unlawful.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 22nd November 2023
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘On 15 November, the Supreme Court issued its much-awaited judgment in the case of AAA and others v the Home Secretary, commonly referred to as the Rwanda asylum policy case. The decision came notably quickly, almost a month after the case was heard, indicating the Court’s responsiveness to the urgency and the wider public interest surrounding the case. Despite the swift turnaround, the judgment was meticulously formulated, reflecting the serious implications of the case.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 21st November 2023
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Last week the Supreme Court (in R (AAA) v Home Secretary) found the UK government’s policy to send asylum applicants to Rwanda unlawful on the grounds that “removal … to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement” [149]. In response, the Prime Minister announced that the government intends to “take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation” which “will enable Parliament to confirm that… Rwanda is safe”.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd November 2023
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘R ((AAA) Syria and Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42. The Government’s flagship policy of removing individual asylum seekers to Rwanda for their claims to be decided under the Rwandan asylum system that was announced on 14th April 2022 has been found to be unlawful by a unanimous Supreme Court.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th November 2023
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In the immigration rules (352ZD) the definition of an Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Child (“UASC”) is broad and aimed at child protection. It expressly includes children who lodged their claim whilst they were under 18 (even if they have since turned 18); their age is set in time at point of entry. This is no longer the case under section 4 IMA. On 5 July 2023, the government published a children’s rights impact assessment of the IMA, finding that it would “protect children from the risk of death, trafficking.” The Children’s Commissioner responded: “I am far from convinced that is the case. Indeed, I am concerned that the threat to a child of deportation at 18 will be a gift to traffickers, as children will feel less able to seek help from professionals and instead go missing into the hands of exploiters.”’
Garden Court Chambers, 2nd October 2023
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘Rishi Sunak has staked his political credibility on pushing through emergency legislation to resurrect his high-profile plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, after the supreme court ruled it was unlawful.’
The Guardian, 15th November 2023
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The UK supreme court has unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.’
EIN Blog, 15th November 2023
Source: www.ein.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025