header-logo header-logo

19 December 2022
Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Rwanda policy lawful but decisions quashed

The Home Secretary’s policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful, the High Court has held.

However, Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift also held the Home Office failed to consider the individual circumstances in the eight rolled-up cases put before it and must now reconsider each one, in AAA v Home Secretary (Rwanda) [2022] EWHC 3230 (Admin).

Delivering their judgment, Lewis LJ and Swift J said ‘the way in which the Home Secretary went about the implementation of her policy in a number of the individual cases before us, was flawed… [and the decisions]… will be quashed’.

Law Society president Lubna Shuja said access to justice for any person considered for removal to Rwanda must remain paramount in Home Office decision-making.  She said the case was likely to be appealed and would therefore not be settled for some time.

‘Whatever the final outcome, we hope the government will commit to taking a measured approach and continue to review its obligations under international and domestic law,’ Shuja said.

‘When considering individual cases, the government should always assess whether removing the individual would be in breach of their human rights. The government must ensure that any affected individual has proper access to a lawyer, that the specific facts of each case are scrupulously considered by the Home Office and enough time is provided for people to challenge a removal, when appropriate.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll