First flight to take asylum seekers to Rwanda stopped by courts
- Published
- comments
Rwanda asylum flight cancelled after legal action
The first flight due to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda was cancelled minutes before take-off after a legal ruling on Tuesday evening.
The flight was part of a new plan by the government to send some asylum seekers who arrive in the UK to apply for asylum in Rwanda, in east Africa, instead.
It's a policy that has caused a lot of controversy - and with many elements of the plan being caught up in political and legal arguments, the first flight didn't happen.
Read on to find out more.
Why didn't the flight happen?
91Èȱ¬ Secretary Priti Patel travelled to the Rwandan capital Kigali to sign the deal, which would last for five years
The cancellation of the flight followed days of arguments in UK courts, ending with the home secretary getting the go-ahead to begin transporting some of the asylum seekers.
Up to seven people had been expected to be removed to Rwanda.
But a judgement from the European Court of Human Rights halted the deportation of one of the men and then that triggered more legal challenges in London courts - leading to the flight being cancelled.
UK judges will now consider whether the whole Rwanda policy is lawful next month.
What is the 'Rwanda plan'?
At the last general election Boris Johnson's Conservative Party promised to do more to tackle illegal immigration - people coming to the UK without the right to do so.
It also wanted to do something abut the problem of people, including children, crossing the English Channel in boats from France - often arranged by smuggling gangs.
Each year thousands of people make that very dangerous crossing, in overcrowded and often unsafe boats and many people have died doing it.
Migrants have different reasons for trying to come to the UK - many come from countries like Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq to flee war or persecution in search of safety.
Others are coming to the UK illegally in hope of finding more opportunities.
Part of the government's response to all this was to come up with a plan to send some people who arrive to the African country of Rwanda to seek asylum there.
They say this would help to tackle the problem and also put people off coming to the UK illegally, if they knew they couldn't stay.
An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their home country, entered another country and applied for the right to international protection and to stay in that country.
According to the policy, the migrants sent to Rwanda could ask for asylum there, go through the process in that country to see if they qualified, and if they failed they could be offered other ways to stay.
How have people reacted to the idea?
A group of protestors outside the Rwanda High Commission in London
Since announcing the plan the government have faced lots of criticism about it - whether it was fair, ethical and whether it would actually put off people from coming illegally, and gangs from smuggling them in.
There have also been many challenges in court - both about the policy and about the individuals the government wants to send to Rwanda.
More than 160 charities and campaign groups urged the government to scrap the new plan in an open letter that called it "shamefully cruel".
They argue that there is no real way that asylum seekers can now make it to Britain legally, so this plan is unfair on those who break the rules to get to the UK.
The ECtHR aims to apply and to protect the civil and political rights of people living in Europe. It follows the European Convention on Human Rights, a very important treaty that was drawn up after World War II.
The court considers cases brought by individuals, organisations and states against the countries which are bound by the convention; namely, all European nations except Belarus.
Countries must follow the court's verdicts, although the court cannot directly enforce this.
Most of the nations which have signed up, including the UK, have incorporated its principles into their own laws. The court will normally only hear a case when there is no other way left to challenge a decision.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said the new plan was "the opposite of the nature of God" and in a letter to the Times, senior Church of England leaders said the plan "shames Britain".
The plan has also faced criticism from other MP's including opposition parties and some Conservatives.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the scheme was "unworkable, unethical and extortionate". The Liberal Democrats said the government was "slamming the door" in the face of refugees, and the Scottish National Party (SNP) said the new plan was "absolutely chilling".
What has the government said?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson laid out the plans for the new bill in a speech in Kent earlier this year
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that that people trying to undermine the Rwanda policy were helping "the work of criminal gangs".
He argued that his government would not be put off the policy or by criticism of it.
He says he wants to ensure there is a "clear distinction" between immigration to the UK by safe and legal routes that the government supports and "dangerous and illegal cross-Channel migration, which we intend to stop".
91Èȱ¬ Secretary Priti Patel, whose department came up with the scheme, said she was "disappointed" that the flight had been stopped but that the government would still push forward go ahead with its plan.
She added: "Preparation for the next flight begins now."
We are taking bold and innovative steps and it's surprising that those institutions that criticise the plans fail to offer their own solutions.
Members of the government have also criticised the lawyers involved in the cases, saying their actions are politically motivated and UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has also defended the plan, challenging critics to come up with something better.
The Rwandan government said it remained committed to its deal with the UK and was "not deterred" by the failure of the first flight to depart.
Spokeswoman Yolande Makolo said: "Rwanda stands ready to receive the migrants when they do arrive and offer them safety and opportunity in our country."