Home Office Rwanda deportation plan unfair to torture survivors, appeal court told

Government plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda are “unfair” to torture survivors, the Court of Appeal has been told.

In December, two judges at the High Court dismissed a series of legal bids over the Home Office proposals, ruling the plans are lawful.

Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift gave the go-ahead to several individual asylum seekers and the charity Asylum Aid to challenge their decision.

The appeal in London – which is expected to last four days – will also hear from lawyers for the UN Refugee agency and the charity Freedom from Torture.

In written evidence, Tim Buley KC, representing Freedom from Torture, said the speed of the process means there is no “adequate opportunity” to identify torture survivors.

The Court of Appeal was told that under the plans, asylum seekers are given seven days to make representations, with five working days between the decision to remove them and the removal.

He said: “An individual’s status as a torture survivor can only be taken into account, in line with the policy, if that status is first identified.

“That requires individuals to have an effective opportunity to identify themselves as a survivor of torture, obtain relevant supporting evidence, and make representations on their experience of torture and its relevance to the removal decision.”

Mr Buley said that the “unfairness” of the process for torture survivors has “serious practical consequences”.

He continued: “It is likely to result in a systematic failure to identify survivors of torture and/or to ensure that such survivors are dealt with appropriately.

“This, in turn, means that vulnerable individuals are liable to be removed on the basis of unlawful and inappropriate suitability decisions, which fail to take into account their status as torture survivors and the impact of that torture on their mental and physical health.”

The barrister also said due to their trauma, torture survivors may struggle to give full accounts of their experiences, make late disclosures and could be missed without proper assessment.

Charlotte Kilroy KC, for Asylum Aid, said it was “generally not possible” to prepare documents such as witness statements or medical evidence within seven days.

“The individual must ordinarily be given an opportunity to make representations in advance,” the barrister said in written submissions.

Ms Kilroy continued: “If seven calendar days was not sufficient to make representations prior to the decision, five working days will plainly not be sufficient after it, given the multiple tasks of instructing lawyers, giving instructions on the reasons for refusal, gathering evidence on all relevant issues, making further representations, obtaining legal aid and applying for judicial review, and also applying for an injunction to stop removal.”

The Court of Appeal has also received written submissions from UNHCR, the UN Refugee agency.

Angus McCullough KC, for the agency, said removing asylum seekers to the east African country will raise “a real risk of breaches of the Refugee Convention”.

He continued: “UNHCR will not lightly make public statements critical of Rwanda or of any other countries where it operates… Nonetheless there has been no room in these proceedings for any realistic doubt about UNHCR’s position.”

Mr McCullough added: “There are good reasons why an unequivocal warning from UNHCR to refrain from removals to a particular destination, generally or for a sub-category of asylum-seeker, carries particular weight.”

Speaking to reporters during a visit to Rwanda in March, Home Secretary Suella Braverman (pictured) said the policy “complies with international law, it complies with the European Convention on Human Rights and complies with the Refugee Convention”.

Lord Pannick KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that the period, which can be extended if requested, is “sufficiently flexible”.

He said: “The Secretary of State’s position is that the imposition of a standard time period strikes a balance between the public interest and the private interests of individuals, particularly those in immigration detention for whom expeditious decision-making is essential.

“The process is designed to determine, without delay, the issue of admissibility and possible removal to Rwanda; whilst giving sufficient opportunity to the individual to make representations in relation to that decision.”

Lord Pannick later said the Home Office accepted the importance of evidence and that in some cases it may take longer than seven days to obtain.

“The framework accommodates that,” the barrister said.

The hearing before the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill is expected to conclude on Thursday with a decision at a later date.

Copyright (c) PA Media Ltd. 2023, All Rights Reserved. Picture (c) House Of Commons / PA.