New fundraising page for our appeal here: www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-rwanda-deportations/

In December, the High Court ruled that the Government’s Rwanda plan is lawful. Care4Calais is now seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal and we need your help.

We continue to believe that refugees will not be safe in Rwanda and that the government gave insufficient consideration to whether Rwanda will uphold refugees’ rights.

At Court of Appeal will have the opportunity to present our arguments and evidence to senior judges. We believe this is a critical opportunity to ensure that this shameful policy is examined with the depth and rigour that is required. Given the enormous impact it will have on thousands of peoples’ lives, this examination is essential.

The case is being appealed by certain individuals who are affected by it, but it is important that the interests of the many thousands of other refugees who will be affected by this policy are also represented. This is why Care4Calais are bringing this appeal.

We are raising funds for our own legal costs, and to protect us from paying the Home Office’s legal fees if we lose at any stage before the Court of Appeal. Funds raised for the initial court case heard by the Divisional Court have now been used. 

The Rwanda plan risks the UK’s reputation as a safe haven where people fleeing conflict and persecution can live in peace and stability.

Please help us to take this crucial next step in stopping this shameful plan. 

On Monday, the Court ruled the Governments Rwanda plan is lawful.  For those of us who support refugees we really want to know, what next?

Let’s start by looking at the decisions in respect of the eight individual claimants. The court ruled that decisions made by the Home Office on inadmissibility and removal in respect of six of the individuals were flawed and should be overturned. They also ruled that decisions made with regard to the human rights of seven of the individuals should be overturned. This means that decisions of the Home Office made with respect to all of the individuals have been quashed, and suggests that if the Government wants to actually go ahead and remove anyone they may have a difficult path ahead.

The judges said that for every person the Home Office considers sending to Rwanda they must consider (1) whether there is anything about their particular circumstances which means that their asylum claim should be determined in the UK and (2) whether there are any other reasons why they should not be relocated to Rwanda.

The judgment provides many details of where the judges consider that the Home Office made errors and/or failed to apply the policy in a sufficiently robust and reasoned manner to the individual circumstances of each case.  What this means is that if any individuals are issued with removal notices for Rwanda they should certainly consider any challenge as there seem to be serious questions over the Home Office’s resources and administrative capability to properly implement this policy. 

Our immediate worry is that the publicity following the judgement, and the framing of it as a ‘big win’ by the Government, will scare asylum seekers who are now in the UK. Please help us to reassure as many as possible that, for the reasons stated above, imminent removals are not expected. People panicking and absconding, or worse attempting suicide, have already been casualties of this policy and sadly are now a real risk again.  

If any asylum seeker receives a letter from the Home Office that mentions Rwanda please refer them to our translated Rwanda leaflets bit.ly/Rwnd1 and bit.ly/Rwnd1a. We will help them find lawyers and be ready to challenge any inadmissibility decision and removal. 

Further reassurance can be given to asylum seekers that last time the Government tried to organise a flight, as part of stopping it, an ‘interim measure’ was issued by the European Court of Human Rights which makes it very difficult for the Government to deport anyone until three weeks after the final decision by a UK court on this matter. 

Our current case has been adjourned until 16 January.   We and the other claimants are now discussing with our lawyers whether appeals can be made on the generic grounds, ie the parts that apply to everyone. If appeals can be made on generic grounds by any of the claimants, the ECHR ruling ought to stand until three weeks after the final decision by highest UK court that hears the case.  

• Generic grounds - safety 

The court had to decide whether the Home Secretary’s decision that Rwanda is safe was reasonable and had taken into account a thorough evaluation of the available evidence.  

UNHCR provided significant evidence that refugees have previously not been safe in Rwanda and that Rwanda’s asylum system is inadequate.  The Home Office disregarded this and relied on the (non legally binding) MOU agreement between the UK and Rwanda in which Rwanda promises things will be different in relation to individuals transferred under this agreement. The court broadly found that, as no one has yet been deported to Rwanda under the agreement there is no evidence that Rwanda will break the promises in the MOU. 

Evidence was presented regarding refugees in Rwanda who took part in riots over food shortages in 2018 that were suppressed by police who fired on demonstrators, some of whom were killed.  The court concluded that any refugees transferred to Rwanda by the UK would be treated differently because they would be protected by the promises made in the MOU, and so no similar protests should arise.  

The judges appeared to reject the suggestion that the past behaviour of the Rwandan authorities is an indicator of their future behaviour.  They seem to expect an MOU bubble to surround any UK-transferred refugees that will keep them separate to what happens generally to other asylum-seekers in Rwanda.

• Generic grounds - Refugee Convention Article 31 

The Refugee Convention says that penalties should not be imposed on refugees because they enter a country illegally, subject to conditions being met.  But the Government says it wants to deter refugees from entering the UK illegally by sending them to Rwanda. So this must be against the Refugee Convention, right? 

The Government’s lawyers presented evidence that when Article 31 was drafted it was not intended to stop a country from deporting a refugee to another country, as long as that other country is safe. So this point is now tied in to the above point where the Home Secretary has - lawfully in the opinion of the court - concluded that Rwanda is safe.  As long as Rwanda is safe, Article 31 should not prohibit refugees being sent there.  But isn’t there a contradiction? Being sent to Rwanda is even more frightening than the very real risk of drowning in the Channel.  But Rwanda is safe. 

• Generic grounds - Refugee Convention Article 33 

A country should not send a refugee to another country where his life will be under threat, either directly (in Rwanda) or indirectly, if Rwanda send him on to somewhere he might be under threat. 

As part of the Home Secretary’s decision that Rwanda is a safe country she had determined that refugees sent there by the UK (if not other refugees) will be safe and will not be sent on to places where they will be at risk, so the judges rejected this ground.

We now need our lawyers to determine whether, to what extent and by whom, any of the above may be challenged. 

We think its shocking that the Government is wasting time and money on this brutal plan when just a week ago another eight pole drowned in the Channel. With your help we will continue this fight.  We know there is a kinder and more effective way to stop small boat crossings and save refugees lives. For more information go to care4calais.org/safepassage

Last week Care4Calais alongside PCS union, Detention Action and a number of individual claimants were in court to challenge the Government’s Rwanda removal policy. We wanted to update you on the five days we spent in court last week.

Our lawyers presented comprehensive evidence that the Government had been told by its own officials about human rights abuses in Rwanda before it launched the Rwanda scheme, and that the Foreign Office was opposed to the Home Office making a deal with the Rwanda due to serious human rights concerns, citing extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, torture and using refugees to conduct armed operations in neighbouring countries.  Despite this, the Government went ahead.

UNHCR presented compelling evidence of its own concerns about both Rwanda’s human rights record and the Government's proposed scheme, including evidence that Rwanda does not have the capability to fairly hear asylum claims and evidence that refugees will not be safe there and could potentially be sent back to their dangerous home countries.

Due to the volume of evidence and the complexity of the case there will be a further hearing on 10 October when our colleagues at Asylum Aid will present evidence of how the process has been unfair, based partly on our witness statement from having supported so many of the people involved in the attempted June flight. We therefore now won’t get a ruling until October or November. 

The decision made by the ECHR to stop flights until the final outcome of the case is known should prevent flights taking off in the interim period however every day we are being contacted by more people who have received new Rwanda notices and are very scared.  

This article provides an excellent summary of the five days we spent in court last week:  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/09/rwanda-asylum-processing-deal-warnings-ignored-high-court?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&fbclid=IwAR1L50cPbEfIgYn531UX_rv5kBYd-omNZYwtTn7nyEQNXPkTkxcG8ACyGFM

Due to the scale of the work involved and the resource that the Government has put into fighting this case, our own legal costs are rapidly growing so we are asking for further donations to support this work. If you can donate or are able to share with others who have not yet donated, please do. It really will help us fight this brutal policy.