On 15 November the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) more commonly known as the “Rwandan Policy” is unlawful. The policy is the mechanism under which the Home Secretary was seeking to deport inadmissible asylum seekers to Rwanda to let the Rwandan government decide on the merits of their claims. The claimants were all asylum seekers who came either by boat or by lorry to the UK, a form of entering the country that is effectively entirely disqualifying when it comes to applying for asylum. The claimants won their case in the Court of Appeal due to the policy being a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (transposed into UK law by article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998) as well as the UK’s Immigration Rules. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision and dealt a massive blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's promise to “stop the boats”.
On 15 November the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding both the ECHR and the Immigration rules was correct. The Home Secretary may, under paragraphs 35A to 35D of the Immigration Rules, remove an inadmissible asylum seeker to a “safe” third-party country that has agreed to accept them. But Rwanda was found to not be a “safe” country. The Court found that due to Rwanda’s history of deporting asylum seekers back to their home countries where they would face possible imprisonment and/or inhumane treatment Rwanda could not qualify as a “safe” country despite its government’s assurances. This in turn was deemed to violate Article 3 of the ECHR, which states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, due to the risk that Rwanda would return the asylum seekers to their respective countries of origin.
This decision is a victory for asylum seekers and Human Rights advocates alike, but it may be short-lived. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said that the government has upgraded what was merely an agreement with Rwanda to a treaty and says that it includes binding assurances that the Court has asked for.
For the moment it seems as though the UK’s anti-migrant policy has been halted, but the question remains for how long. Whether Prime Minister Sunak’s promised treaty with Rwanda is deemed lawful by the Court, or the UK fully pulls out of the ECHR as has been suggested it seems unlikely that the promise to “stop the boats” will be going away any time soon.
For the full judgment in R ((AAA) Syria and Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42 click here https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2023/42.html