Top Marks For The Court Of Appeal In AAA? The Rwanda Judgment In Brief

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Law Firm: Latitude Law
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Author: Joel Reiss
• Published date: 10 July 2023

On 29 June 2023 the Court of Appeal issued its decision in the case of AAA v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 745. 10 appellants and Asylum Aid had been given permission to argue 22 grounds of appeal against a decision of the High Court. The case relates to the Government's plans to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda where they will have their cases decided. The shorthand reference to this policy has become known as the Rwanda Plan.

Ultimately, in a 161-page decision, the Court of Appeal found that the plan is unlawful as the Rwandan Government cannot safely administer the Rwanda Plan. This is good. However, the decision was not unanimous, which is worrying, and the Government will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. This is a positive decision, but the proceedings continue.

The decision succinctly distills the 22 arguments down to 3:

1. Is Rwanda a safe country for asylum seekers?
2. Will asylum seekers be returned to their home countries (refoulement) or face breaches of their Article 3 rights?
3. Will asylum claims be fairly and properly determined in Rwanda?

If the answer to any of the above is "no", or even "maybe", then the policy cannot stand.

Throughout proceedings there has been a tension between the Government's position and the objective evidence relied upon by the appellants. The Government relies on diplomatic assurances from the Rwandan Government and states that these assurances are sufficient to outweigh examples of mistreatment of asylum seekers who are not covered by the assurances. Essentially, the Government is seeking to ignore evidence of mistreatment on the promise from the Rwandan Government that asylum seekers will not be mistreated - I hope you can see why those facing removal are trying to remain in the UK.

The appellants have a wealth of evidence of mistreatment and failures in the asylum process in Rwanda - you can probably see why the UK Government sought to rely on future promises.

At Paragraph 6 of the decision, the Court confirms the submission of the UNHCR which issued a rare and unequivocal warning that there should be no transfers because of the clear view that the arrangement was incompatible with the UK's obligations under the Refugee Convention. The Government argued this was irrelevant; effectively saying everything unhelpful...