Sign Up for our Free Newsletter
menu
Solicitors Journal Homepage
  • Home
  • News
  • Digital Edition
  • Practice Notes
    • Area of Law
      • Agricultural
      • ADR & Mediation
      • Asylum & Immigration
      • Aviation
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Charities
      • Children
      • Clinical negligence
      • Commercial
      • Competition
      • Construction
      • Conveyancing
      • Costs
      • Crime
      • Data Protection
      • Discrimination
      • Education
      • Employment
      • Energy
      • EU
      • Expert witness
      • Family
      • Financial services & Tax
      • Health & Safety
      • Human rights
      • Inquest
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual property
      • Legal Aid
      • Litigation
      • Maritime
      • Media
      • Mergers & Acquisition
      • Pensions
      • Personal injury
      • Police & Prisons
      • Private client
      • Procedures
      • Professional negligence
      • Property
      • Public Law
      • Regulation
      • Residential
      • Road traffic
      • Vulnerable Clients
    • Management
      • Business Development and Marketing
      • Career development
      • Covid-19
      • Education & Training
      • Equality & diversity
      • Ethics and Compliance
      • Finance
      • Human Resources
      • Knowledge management
      • Leadership
      • Legal services
      • Marketing
      • Pro bono
      • Professional indemnity
      • Regulators
      • Risk & Compliance
      • Technical legal practice
      • Technology
      • Wellbeing
  • Opinion
  • Business
  • International
  • Interview
  • Features
  • More
    • About
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletter
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
    • Media Pack
    • Site Map
  • Contact Us
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Follow us:
    Twitter
    LinkedIn
© 2023 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Suzanne Townley

Suzanne Townley

News EditorSolicitors Journal

Leigh Day and Asylum Aid continue Rwanda scheme legal challenge despite unsuccessful injunction 

Wed Jun 15 2022News
Leigh Day and Asylum Aid continue Rwanda scheme legal challenge despite unsuccessful injunction 

The first Rwanda-bound flight was grounded yesterday after the ECHR intervened

The Rwanda scheme will continue to face legal challenges despite the dismissal on Monday (13 June) of an urgent interim injunction by leading refugee charity, Asylum Aid, to halt removals to Rwanda. Asylum Aid are being advised by Leigh Day.

The charity has confirmed that despite the court’s decision it will continue with its judicial review challenge to the scheme.  

A separate application by Detention Action, Commercial Services Union (PCS), Care4Calais for an urgent injunction to stop the flight was also refused in the Court of Appeal on Monday following initial rejection at the High Court on Friday 10 June 2022. 

However, the first removal flight to Rwanda scheduled for 10:30pm yesterday (Tuesday 14 June) was grounded after the European Court of Human Rights granted an urgent injunction to one of the seven asylum seekers destined for the flight, not long after the UK Supreme Court had rejected his application. Subsequently, the remaining six migrants facing deportation also secured similar injunctions.

This could mean that flights are halted until the judicial review is heard. It is hoped these will be listed in the next two months. It will be down to individuals to seek injunctions preventing their removal and Asylum Aid will seek to support and monitor those applications.

Asylum Aid argues that the government’s rapid process for sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful as it is inconsistent with the statutory powers conferred on the Home Secretary by Parliament, procedurally unfair and constitutes a serious impediment to access to justice.

Asylum Aid’s concerns include that the plans are:

  • based on a blanket assessment of Rwanda as a ‘safe’ country, which goes against the government’s commitment to case-by-case decision-making;
  • involve such tight timeframes – only seven or fourteen days for each asylum seeker to obtain legal advice and to present their case – that the process is inherently flawed and unfair;
  • give rise to a real risk that individuals may be removed without having had effective access to legal advice and courts.

In its legal case, Asylum Aid argues the Home Office is mimicking the ‘safe third country’ (STC) asylum returns agreement, known as ‘Dublin III’, that applied when the UK was a member of the EU, and applying it to the Rwanda arrangement without the necessary legal safeguards. Rwanda’s record on human rights, refugee status determination and commitment to the rule of law has attracted consistent international criticism and is not presumed by statute to be generally safe.

Tessa Gregory, partner at Leigh Day said: “Our client is bitterly disappointed by the Court's decision to refuse its application for an injunction to halt the flight. Asylum Aid will now continue with their substantive challenge as they remain seriously concerned that the procedures adopted give rise to a real risk that individuals will be forcibly removed without effective access to legal advice and the courts.” 

Kerry Smith, CEO of Asylum Aid, said: “We are disappointed that the court did not put a stop to flights to Rwanda until the lawfulness of the scheme can be reviewed. However, this setback won’t stop us fighting to end this cruel scheme. We stand firm in our belief that this government’s attempt to rapidly remove vulnerable people seeking asylum because it doesn’t approve of the way they reached our shores is unlawful and we will proceed with our substantive judicial review challenge in the High Court.

“Unfortunately, the government’s reliance on the voluntary and legal sector’s crisis response in providing representation to force it to consider its position on individual cases before it removes them is no guarantee that people will not be removed without access to legal advice in the future.  While all of us in the sector are committed to preventing this from happening, our capacity is stretched. This is why we will proceed with our substantive judicial review challenge and hope for it to be heard as soon as possible in order that unlawful and unfair scheme is brought to an end. 

“This disgraceful push to hastily remove people seeking protection to Rwanda is another attempt to pass the buck on the UK’s responsibilities. We know that the people who will be sent to Rwanda come from countries in conflict or that have poor human rights records such as Iran, Syria, and Sudan.  

“Rwanda is not a safe country for people fleeing persecution, in particular for survivors of trafficking, torture and LGBTQ+ people. Sending people there will put them at risk of further harm. Imagine being condemned to permanent expulsion to an unknown and potentially dangerous country, just because you took the only route available to you to reach safety.

“The Rwanda scheme involves a process that flies in the face of the government’s stated commitment to a ‘fair’ asylum system. We are seeing vulnerable people locked up on arrival in the UK with no information, no understanding of what is happening to them and only given seven days to access legal advice and make their case for not being removed to Rwanda. You would get longer than that to challenge a parking ticket. Our justice system is based on the rule of law and we should be making sure that all people fleeing countries where they are denied those things are offered a genuinely fair process to make their case.” 

Tags:
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisement
Latest News

Legal Services Board survey on tech innovation in the legal services sector

Tue Jun 06 2023

Prime Minister details progress made to stop illegal border crossings

Tue Jun 06 2023

Law Society and Bar Council sign MoU with the Bar Council of India

Tue Jun 06 2023

APPG for Crypto and Digital Assets calls for urgent regulation in the UK

Mon Jun 05 2023

UN Child Rights Committee publishes report on the UK

Mon Jun 05 2023

Regulator of Social Housing publishes latest financial trends report

Mon Jun 05 2023

SRA details factors influencing outcomes for Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates

Fri Jun 02 2023

Competition and Markets Authority publishes green heating and insulation sector report

Fri Jun 02 2023

Sentencing Council publishes new business plan

Fri Jun 02 2023
Featured
Saudi Arabia’s evolving business laws
InternationalTue Jun 06 2023
Saudi Arabia’s evolving business laws

Dr Hamid Harasani and Samaher Alsobeihy explore how Saudi Arabia has reformed its companies law per its Vision 2030 ambitions

Love-bombing recognised as a sign of abuse
Practice NotesMon Jun 05 2023
Love-bombing recognised as a sign of abuse

Samantha Farndale explores how family lawyers can recognise and address love-bombing in abusive relationships

Personal data protection in the UAE
InternationalThu Jun 01 2023
Personal data protection in the UAE

Ashish Mehta examines the data protection regime under the new federal personal data protection law in the UAE

Navigating India’s investment landscape
InternationalThu May 25 2023
Navigating India’s investment landscape

While India offers many attractive investment opportunities, there are various regulatory factors to be aware of

SJ Interview: James Fulforth
SJ InterviewThu May 18 2023
SJ Interview: James Fulforth

The Solicitors Journal spoke to James Fulforth, Kingsley Napley’s newly appointed Senior Partner, about his experiences in the law, his thoughts on the UK’s tech sector and what he hopes to achieve in his new role

Long-awaited reports and controversial bills dominate
ForewordTue Apr 25 2023
Long-awaited reports and controversial bills dominate

Sophie Cameron takes a look at the news in the April Foreword