Legal challenge over lawfulness of policy of relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda goes to Court of Appeal

The legal challenge over the lawfulness of the Government's policy of relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda will go to the Court of Appeal after the High Court today granted permission to appeal against December's judgment in AAA (Syria) and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3230 (Admin).

Image credit: WikipediaAlasdair Mackenzie of Doughty Street Chambers said on Twitter that permission to appeal was granted to most of the claimants on various grounds. They relate to the safety of the Rwandan asylum system, the fairness of the UK process for deciding upon relocation, the compatibility of the policy with the part of the Refugee Convention on immunity from penalties and with retained EU law.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg noted: "The judges agreed with Lord Pannick KC, for [the Secretary of State], that permission to appeal should be granted only on points where there was a real prospect of success or some other compelling reason for granting permission. They whittled down the grounds put forward by individual claimants, allowing some but not all to go before the Court of Appeal."

The Independent reported that permission to appeal was granted to individual claimants and to Asylum Aid, but the other organisations in the legal challenge — Care4Calais, Detention Action, and the Public and Commercial Services Union — were ruled to have no legal standing to continue fighting the case.

Clare Moseley, Care4Calais' founder, said on Twitter: "We are pleased that permission to appeal has been granted to the individuals on a number of grounds and that the case will go forward. We are disappointed that the court has not recognised our standing to represent the people we support and we will be discussing further appeals with our lawyers."

Detention Action also expressed disappointment over being denied standing in the challenge and said it was discussing with its legal team the option of seeking permission directly from the Court of Appeal.

Asylum Aid welcomed today's good news. Its crowdfunding page for the forthcoming appeal notes: "Asylum Aid's lawyers will argue over two days that the Home Office is so determined to send people to Rwanda that it designed a process that is far too quick and limited for the people affected to be able to get access to justice and challenge the decision to send them to Rwanda."

According to Alasdair Mackenzie, the case is likely to be heard by the Court of Appeal in spring or early summer.

Update: The Court's official summary of the decision was released on 17 January and helpfully summarises the grounds on which permission to appeal was granted as follows:

(a) the arrangements made by the Home Secretary for removal of asylum claimants from the United Kingdom to Rwanda:

(i) are inconsistent with article 31 of the Refugee Convention and as such are contrary to the provisions of section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993;

(ii) are inconsistent with retained EU law;

(iii) rest on an incorrect use of powers available to the Home Secretary under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004; and

(iv) are inconsistent with the requirements set out in paragraph 345B of the Immigration Rules; and

(b) the Home Secretary's conclusion that Rwanda is a safe third country to which asylum claimants can be removed is not consistent with the requirements of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and

(c) the Home Secretary's arrangements for taking such decisions are systemically unfair because they do not permit the asylum claimants concerned the opportunity to consider her reasons for concluding that Rwanda is a safe third country and make representations in response.