Why the Supreme Court demolished the Rwanda scheme

In its simple and comprehensible judgment, the Supreme Court has dealt a crushing blow to the Home Office’s Rwanda policy this morning.  

The court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that the policy was unlawful. It reached that view because it believed there were substantial grounds to think that asylum claims would not be properly determined by the Rwandan authorities. That would mean that asylum seekers might be returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened, or where they would be subject to a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.  

This would be contrary to the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ – a core principle of international law set out not only in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but also other international treaties including the Refugee Convention.  

The court noted that the UK parliament had given force to these treaties in several domestic statutes, including:  

• The Human Rights Act 1998; 
• The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; 
• The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; 
• The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.)