The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom has ruled that the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the divisional court and was entitled to find that there are substantial grounds for believing that the removal of the claimants to Rwanda would expose them to real risk of ill treatment by reason of refoulement. It was accordingly correct to hold that the Secretary of State ‘s policy is unlawful. “The Secretary of State ‘s appeal is therefore dismissed.”
This is in relation to the case of R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKSC 42
The appeal is concerned with the Secretary of State’s policy that certain people claiming asylum in the UK should not have their claims considered in the UK but should instead be sent to Rwanda in order to claim asylum there.Their claims will then be decided by the Rwandan authorities,with the result that if their claims are successful,they will be granted asylum in Rwanda
THE COURT ORDERED that no one shall publish or reveal the names or addresses of AAA, HTN, RM, AS, SAA or ASM (the “Claimants”) or publish or reveal any information which would be likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants or of any member of their respective families in connection with these proceedings.
The parties as listed in Court papers are:
(on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) (Respondents/Cross Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent);
R (on the application of HTN (Vietnam)) (Respondent/Cross Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent);
R (on the application of RM (Iran)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant);
R (on the application of AS (Iran)) (Respondent/Cross Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent)
R (on the application of SAA (Sudan)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant); and
R (on the application of ASM (Iraq)) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
