In R (AAA & others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal, and held that Rwanda is not a safe country for the UK to send asylum seekers to for determination of their claims.
In a judgment given by Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones, the Supreme Court’s ruling was based on evidence as to (i) Rwanda’s poor human rights record; (ii) defects in Rwanda’s procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims; and (iii) Rwanda’s recent failure to comply with the non-refoulement principle in an agreement for the removal of asylum seekers from Israel to Rwanda. The Supreme Court held that the majority of the Court of Appeal had been entitled to conclude, and were correct on the evidence to conclude, that due to these serious deficiencies there are substantial grounds to believe there are real risks persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries, from which they were fleeing persecution or ill-treatment, contrary to the principle of non-refoulement as set out in the Refugee Convention, Article 3 of the ECHR and other international and domestic instruments.
The judgment may be read here [R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) (Respondents/Cross Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent); (supremecourt.uk)] and the Supreme Court’s own press summary of its decision can be read here [R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) (Respondents/ Cross Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/ Cross Respondent) (supremecourt.uk)].
Christopher Knight acted for the lead AAA claimants, instructed by Duncan Lewis.
