The Court of Appeal heard today that only 11 migrants are left on tomorrow’s removal aircraft to Rwanda, as the government attempted to overcome the first of two legal challenges.
After a wave of litigation, the number of people who had been told that they were slated for deportation under the policy had dropped to 31 on Friday, with the total now barely in double digits.
The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), which represents more than 80% of Border Force employees, as well as the charities Care4Calais and Detention Action, are appealing to the Court of Appeal last Friday’s High Court decision allowing the first flight to the east African country to take place.
After Asylum Aid, a refugee organisation, moved for an urgent temporary order to prevent the Government from flying migrants to Rwanda, a second case is set to be heard in the High Court.
Mr Justice Swift’s judgment on Friday involved errors of principle or was ‘plainly erroneous,’ according to Raza Husain QC, who represents PCS, Care4Calais, and Detention Action.
‘Executive detention, forcible removal from the jurisdiction, transportation to a country from which they have not sought protection and to which they do not wish to go, in circumstances where the individuals concerned are exercising a legal right; and their removal is intended to deter others,’ he wrote in written submissions.
‘In any case, this amounts to a major violation of human dignity… if those folks have already experienced significant trauma and have mental health issues.’
Mr Husain said one of the people facing deportation to Rwanda, who had fled Syria, had been a victim of human trafficking and wrongful incarceration.
‘His agency told him he had to travel on a boat to the UK,’ the barrister continued. He remembers screaming and wailing in prison, and says that the prospect of being deported to Rwanda frightens him so much that he can’t sleep at night,’ and that he would ‘rather die than go to Rwanda.’
He said the Home Office’s view that Rwanda is a “safe third country” for asylum claims is “abundantly clear” and “was predicated on a complete misunderstanding” of UNHCR’s views.
UNHCR was concerned about ‘deficiencies’ in Rwanda’s process, including ‘arbitrary denial of access to the process, lack of interpreters, lack of training and low numbers of eligibility officers, systemically biased decision-making, particularly in claims from Middle-Eastern applicants, absence of reasons for rejection, and inadequate appeals processes,’ according to him.
‘The Secretary of State gave no response to these questions. Neither does the verdict. The judgement cannot be logically upheld as a matter of basic public law,’ the barrister added.
Mr Husain contended that Mr Justice Swift erred in determining the strength of the claimants’ case and erred in deciding on the ‘balance of convenience.’
‘We argue the judge erred in his appraisal of the legal strength of our argument in respect of ground one, where we say it was unanswerable and effectively conceded by the Secretary of State,’ the barrister told the court.
‘If temporary relief is denied and the action prevails, each claimant will be entitled to a ‘bring back’ order,’ he stated in written remarks.
‘If the individuals can be brought back, which may or may not be possible, there will be substantial administrative costs.
‘Every person who has been forcibly taken is likely to have substantial damages claims…
‘This potential cost to the taxpayer surpasses any hardship that a six-week delay in removal awaiting trial could cause.’
It came as Boris Johnson, in defending plans to send Channel migrants to Rwanda, took a thinly veiled dig at Prince Charles.
The Prime Minister slammed’very active lawyers’ who are attempting to prevent the government from deporting the first batch to Africa.
When questioned about the Prince of Wales’ apparent disapproval of the proposals, Mr Johnson insisted that they were necessary to ‘break the business model’ of people smugglers.
‘What I don’t think we should support is continued activity by criminal gangs,’ the premier said pointedly, without directly criticizing the heir to the throne.
‘I do believe it is the job of government to prevent people breaking the law and to support people who are doing the right thing; that is what we are doing,’ he said on LBC.
The Mail reported over the weekend that Prince Charles had privately denounced Rwanda’s asylum plan, calling it “appalling” to give Channel migrants a one-way ticket to Africa. Clarence House has made it clear that the royal family is politically apolitical.
The acrimonious exchanges with Mr Johnson came amid fears that ministers would be prevented from boarding the first flight to Rwanda for Channel migrants.
Human rights lawyers have filed a ‘deluge’ of legal claims on behalf of those scheduled to be deported tomorrow, according to Home Office sources.
They stated that there was a’real possibility’ that the courts would postpone the removal of all 31.
It means that even if the Court of Appeal grants the Home Secretary permission to proceed with the first removal flight today, there may be no one available to board it.
Mr Johnson told LBC that the government had anticipated’very active lawyers’ attempting to overturn Rwanda’s policy.
‘We’ve always said we knew this policy would be attacked by those who want a completely open-doors approach to immigration, who want people to be able to cross the Channel without permission or hindrance,’ he said.
‘There are a lot of lawyers working in this field. I have the utmost respect for the legal profession, but it is also critical that criminal gangs be brought to justice.’
Asked if the policy will be worth it if it results in just one person being removed, Mr Johnson said: ‘I think it’s very important that the criminal gangs who are putting people’s lives at risk in the Channel is going to be broken – is being broken – by this Government.
‘They are selling people a false hope, they are luring them into something extremely risky and criminal.’
Lawyers acting on behalf of the 31 migrants slated to be sent to Rwanda are said either to have lodged legal appeals or warned they would do so today.
‘We are getting claims from every single one,’ a source said. ‘In many cases they are making multiple claims under various bits of the Human Rights Act and modern slavery legislation. Over the weekend there have been new claims every hour and we expect more right up to when the flight goes.
‘We will operate the flight even if there is just one person on it, but there is a real prospect that even that might not be possible.’
Those who cross the Channel illegally face being granted a one-way ticket to Kigali, where they can apply for refuge in the African country, according to the provisions of the agreement with Rwanda.
Sir John Hayes, the former security minister, said it was “ethically the correct thing to do, as well as in line with public demands to reclaim control of our borders.”
Sir John, who chairs the Common Sense Group of Tory MPs, stated, “I am sick to death of crazed do-gooders and fat cat lawyers undermining government policy and the interests of the nation.”
‘We will have to repeal the Human Rights Act if we wind up in a ridiculous position where no one is allowed to board an aircraft that has been found legitimate by the courts due to frivolous human rights objections.’
‘We’ve already committed to overhauling it, and it’s possible that we’ll need to go much further.’ Every significant program that this government tries to implement is entangled in the long tail of Blairism, as seen by laws such as the Human Rights Act.’