Case Name: The Secretary of State for the Home Department v AAA and Others
Citation: [2022] UKSC 1
Procedural History: The Secretary of State appealed against the Court of Appeal's judgment in AAA and Others, which found that the policy of relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful due to deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system.
Facts: The UK Government had a policy of relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda. The Court of Appeal found that there were substantial reasons for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement. The Secretary of State appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the policy of relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful.
Holding: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the policy of relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.
Legal Reasoning: The Court found that there is a real risk that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would face refoulement, thus making the policy unlawful. Evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) demonstrating the deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system was a key element in the Supreme Court reaching its decision. The Court added that the changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be delivered in the future but they have not been demonstrated to be in place in Rwanda now.
Rule of Law: The policy of relocating asylum seekers to a third country is unlawful if there is a real risk of refoulement in that country.
Impact on Subsequent Legal Developments: The judgment calls into question the legality of the new Illegal Migration Act, which prevents people entering the UK without legal permission from getting a decision on their asylum claim and instead aims to remove them elsewhere. The Act is reliant on removing people from the UK to 'safe' third countries, but the Supreme Court's ruling has found that Rwanda is not a safe third country.
Dissenting/Concurring Opinions: There were no dissenting opinions as the decision was unanimous.
Analysis: This decision is significant as it challenges the UK Government's policy on asylum seekers and its new Illegal Migration Act. It emphasises the importance of ensuring that asylum seekers are not sent to countries where they are at risk of refoulement. The Government's response to the judgment, including its plans to introduce emergency legislation and to finalise a new treaty with Rwanda, will be closely watched. The decision also highlights the potential tension between domestic and international law, as indicated by the Prime Minister's comments about the European Court of Human Rights.