Rwanda: La décision du Cour d'appel soulève des questions difficiles

In December 2022, a group of people who are allegedly migrants are brought to Dungeness, Kent

In both legal and political terms, the Rwanda outcome at the Court of Appeal is the worst thing that could happen to the government.

The government has violated the law, according to two judges, by asserting that Rwanda is secure.

The UNHCR, the refugee agency of the United Nations, intervened in the case as the acknowledged experts, and this decision was ultimately based on the strength of its arguments.

Offshoring asylum claims to a third country is not inherently wrong, according to the court.

However, politically, even that begs the question of where the government plans to send its citizens if not to Rwanda.

And for that reason—and I'll return to this point—this saga has devolved into a quagmire that may drag on into the general election.

Is Rwanda a safe and trustworthy location that would give asylum seekers a fair hearing? was the main query for the Court of Appeal.

There was a ton of evidence from the UNHCR and even the government's own officials showing how poorly Rwanda handled asylum requests.

Ministers, however, claimed that Rwanda had provided ironclad assurances and diplomatic promises of justice.

The Court of Appeal has seen disaster with regard to the dependability of those assurances, which were reportedly given in good faith.

By a margin of two to one, the three judges who made up the court decided that Rwanda's asylum system was so inadequate that sending someone there would violate their right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman treatment. They might be returned to their home nations, possibly to their deaths.

In contrast, the soon-to-retire Lord Chief Justice thought it was unlikely that this would ever occur. He claimed that Rwanda had no arrangements in place to return asylum seekers to their home countries, and the UK had a plan in place for oversight.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman tours a building site on the outskirts of Kigali during her visit to Rwanda, to see houses that are being constructed that could eventually house deported migrants from the UK.
The government will "very swiftly" appeal the decision, according to Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who claims that the "system is rigged against the British people.".

The government wants to appeal to the Supreme Court for this reason, but it must first persuade the judges to grant it permission.

Ministers are required to provide evidence of a "point of law of general public importance.". ".

A Supreme Court appeal is likely as a result of the split decision, but the claimants who lost on some of their key arguments might also file counter-appeals.

The nonprofit Asylum Aid may provide one of these.

It had made the case that it was illegal to give asylum seekers only seven days to object to their transfer to Rwanda, possibly without the assistance of a qualified attorney while they are detained in conditions akin to a prison.

The 161-page judgment from the Court of Appeal demonstrates that the court had sincere doubts about how fair this was.

However, it determined that it might be legal if the Home Office had the appropriate safeguards in place.

According to the claimants, there is no proof that these things exist, such as appropriate rules for the officials deciding on a migrant's fate.

According to Tessa Gregory, attorney for the charity, "There are obvious flaws in the process, some of which have been acknowledged by the court.".

"Asylum Aid will think about whether an appeal is necessary. " .

The decision has effects on Parliament as well.

In the House of Lords, the Illegal Migration Bill is at a pivotal point.

The home secretary would have to send the majority of those who cross the English Channel in search of asylum to third countries under that contentious legislation.

But which nations?

According to Dr. Peter William Walsh of Oxford University's independent Migration Observatory, "Even with a Rwanda deal in place, it has never been clear how easy this would be.".

The core principle of the policy cannot be put into practice if there are no safe third countries that will accept asylum seekers from the UK.

In essence, everything is in one fragile basket, and all the eggs are in it. ".

It is obvious that there is not much time left.

The case probably won't be decided until September or October, assuming judges grant the government's request and refer the case to the Supreme Court.

So, the verdict may not be rendered until the end of the year or the beginning of 2024.

If the government prevailed, each passenger assigned to a new flight that was proposed might be able to contest their inclusion starting in February or March.

Individual cases may still be brought before the European Court of Human Rights.

Additionally, the general election is rapidly approaching.

Source link

You've successfully subscribed to Webosor
Great! Next, complete checkout to get full access to all premium content.
Welcome back! You've successfully signed in.
Unable to sign you in. Please try again.
Success! Your account is fully activated, you now have access to all content.
Error! Stripe checkout failed.
Success! Your billing info is updated.
Billing info update failed.