AN asylum charity is set to appeal against the High Court’s ruling that the Home Office’s process for deciding who to send to Rwanda was fair and legal.
Asylum Aid will take their case to the Court of Appeal to be heard between Monday April 25 and Wednesday 27.
It comes in the same week that the House of Commons will conclude its scrutiny of the Illegal Migration Bill in the House of Commons, before moving on to the Lords.
The charity has argued that when the Home Office decides that a country, like Rwanda, is a safe place to send asylum seekers, those who have been threatened with removal to that country should have the right to challenge that decision.
READ MORE: The Proclaimers removed from coronation playlist after anti-monarchy interview
The High Court previously held that the only right of the asylum seeker would be to set out anything in their individual circumstances which would make “the general assessment of safety inapplicable to them”.
Asylum Aid will argue that the common law right to a fair process is not as restricted, and that there should be “basic standards of fairness and decency” before sending someone thousands of miles across the globe.
The charity has insisted that those subject to removal to Rwanda should be given a fair chance to challenge the decision, and be given access to information and effective legal advice, as well as time to lodge an appeal.
The current process does not allow for any of this to take place, and instead the Home Office is using a “curtailed timescale” to decide when to send people to Rwanda, the charity said.
The Illegal Migration Bill would see the UK Government break with international law. Established in the aftermath of World War II, all nations had a duty placed on them to provide protection to those who need it.
The current legislation would see the UK “turn its back on an extremely vulnerable group of people”, the charity added, and have impacts on the justice system.
“It also undermines the Rule of Law to avoid judicial oversight of the life, death and liberty decisions that government officials will make,” Asylum Aid said.
“Allowing executive action without judicial oversight threatens us all: it is a step on the road to tyranny. The shortcut processing of asylum seekers under the Rwanda policy is a piece of the same jigsaw.”
Kerry Smith, chief executive of Asylum Aid, said: ”We have brought this appeal due to the utmost importance of the issue before the court: the fundamental right to a fair and reasonable decision-making process. This is one of the most basic principles of the Rule of Law.
READ MORE: Scottish Greens MSP challenges BBC presenter on HPMA claim
“The High Court’s decision – that people do not require legal advice, that they should be able to understand the process and make representations within seven days, and that they have no right to make representations on the Government’s position that Rwanda is safe – risks denying all those subjected to this procedure a fair hearing.”
Smith said that the lack of safe routes combined with the Illegal Migration Bill and the shortcut Rwanda processing policy, will ensure that “survivors of torture, trafficking and other forms of human cruelty are blocked from the systems that enable them to secure safety”.
Smith added: “Instead of having a pathway to a secure a future, survivors will be kept in limbo – in detention or quasi detention conditions – for years. Some may face removal to Rwanda, a country whose record on human rights and the Rule of Law has been the subject of consistent international criticism. This will increase the risk of exploitation and abuse in the UK, and if successful in Rwanda as well.”
Josie Naughton, CEO of Choose Love, who helped fund the case, said: “Without fair process and a chance to prove their innocence, asylum seekers will be assumed guilty. This flies in the face of legal principles and universal human rights.
READ MORE: Fossil fuel firms lobbied Scottish ministers 'over 200 times under Nicola Sturgeon'
“The failing Rwanda plan is not deterring arrivals. It can only tear apart families, prolong trauma and put survivors of conflict and persecution in new danger.
“Now the government wants to force more deportations under its Refugee Ban Bill. By piling more pressure on a broken system, they are only legislating for failure.
“This is a policy that belongs to a different age. As the world's displaced population continues to grow, the government’s approach needs to be based on the principles of international cooperation, integration, and compassion.
“But it continues to ensnare human lives in cruel and pointless political games.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here