|
But you can still see the hearing live. Please Click Here to go to the Live UK Supreme Court 1 Hearing Today in the UK Supreme Court 1, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs and Lord Sales will provide a Judgment hand-down in Case ID: 2023/0093. At issue is: 1) Did the Divisional Court apply the wrong test when determining whether removal to Rwanda would breach article 3?; 2) If the Divisional Court applied the right test, was the Court of Appeal entitled to interfere with its conclusion that Rwanda was a safe third country?; 3) If the Divisional Court applied the wrong test or there was another basis for interfering with its conclusion, was the Court of Appeal right to conclude that Rwanda was not a safe third country because asylum seekers would face a real risk of refoulement?; 4) Did the Home Secretary fail to discharge her procedural obligation under article 3 to undertake a thorough examination of Rwanda's asylum procedures to determine whether they adequately protect asylum seekers against the risk of refoulement?; 5) Were there substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 in Rwanda itself, in addition to the risk of refoulement?; and 6) Does the Asylum Procedures Directive continue to have effect as retained EU law? This is relevant because the Directive only permits asylum seekers to be removed to a safe third country if they have some connection to it. None of the claimants has any connection to Rwanda. Facts: These appeals arise out of claims brought by individual asylum seekers ('the claimants') who travelled to the UK in small boats (or, in one case, by lorry). The Home Secretary declared the claimants' claims for asylum to be inadmissible, intending that they should be removed to Rwanda where their asylum claims would be decided by the Rwandan authorities. Her decisions were made in accordance with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership ('MEDP') between the UK and Rwanda, recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding and a series of diplomatic 'Notes Verbales'. Under paragraphs 345A to 345D of the Immigration Rules, if the Home Secretary decides that an asylum claim is inadmissible, she is permitted to remove the person who has made the claim to any safe third country that agrees to accept the asylum claimant. On the basis of the arrangements made in the MEDP, the Home Secretary decided that Rwanda was a safe third country for these purposes. This is 'the Rwanda policy'. The Home Secretary now appeals to the Supreme Court on issues (1) to (3) below. AAA (Syria) and others and HTN (Vietnam) cross appeal on issues (4) and (5). AS (Iran) also cross appeals on issue (4). ASM (Iraq) appeals on issue (6). |
Chat
