The government’s loss in its Rwanda appeal spells trouble for Rishi Sunak. But liberals are delighted: ‘Massive result,’ said the barrister Adam Wagner after the Court of Appeal ruled that would-be asylum seekers cannot be sent to the African country while their claims are processed. Sunak plans to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court – but his pledge to ‘stop the boats’ looks to be in trouble. Or is it?
There is more to today’s decision than meets the eye. The victory hardly resounding. Of the five grounds of appeal, ranging from super-technical ones like retained EU law and data protection issues to more general issues of conditions in Rwanda, only one was successful – and only by a majority of two to one (the Lord Chief Justice dissenting).
This concerned the safety and desirability of Rwanda as a destination for asylum seekers. The decision was that, in the view of the court, there were good reasons to think that the Rwandan asylum system and judiciary left a good deal to be desired, and that there were reasons to be concerned that some refugees might be subjected to inhuman treatment, or sent on to other countries (in legal jargon, ‘refouled’) to other countries where this might happen.
Who out of judges and politicians ought to have the final say?
Fair enough, you might say.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in