AAA (Syria) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Lewis,Mr Justice Swift |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 3230 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: CO/2032/2022, CO/2104/2022, CO/2077/2022, CO/2080/2022, CO/2098/2022, CO/2072/2022, CO/2094/222, and CO/2056/2022 |
The King on the application of
and
The King on the application of
The King on the application of
The King on the application of
The King on the application of
The King on the application of
The King on the application of
The King on the application of
[2022] EWHC 3230 (Admin)
Lord Justice Lewis
And Mr Justice Swift
Case Nos: CO/2032/2022, CO/2104/2022, CO/2077/2022, CO/2080/2022, CO/2098/2022, CO/2072/2022, CO/2094/222, and CO/2056/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Raza Husain KC, Phillippa Kaufmann KC, Sam Grodzinski KC, Alex Grigg, Christopher Knight, Paul Luckhurst, Tim Johnston, Jason Pobjoy, Ali Bandegani, Raza Halim, Grace Capel, Emma Mockford, Anirudh Mathur, Allan Cerim, Emmeline Plews, Will Bordell, and Rayan Fakhoury (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the Claimants
Lord Pannick KC, Sir James Eadie KC, Rory Dunlop KC, Edward Brown KC, Colin Thomann, Simon Murray, Mark Vinall, Jack Anderson, Sian Reeves, and Natasha Barnes (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Angus McCullough KC, Laura Dubinsky KC, David Chirico, Benjamin Bundock, Jennifer MacLeod, and Agata Patyna (instructed by Baker McKenzie) for the Intervener
Sam Grodzinski KC and Alex Grigg (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the Claimant
Richard Drabble KC, Alasdair Mackenzie, David Sellwood, and Rosa Polaschek (instructed by Wilson Solicitors LLP) for the Claimant
Richard Drabble KC, Leonie Hirst, and Angelina Nicolaou (instructed by Wilson Solicitors LLP) for the Claimant
Sonali Naik KC, Amanda Weston KC, Mark Symes, Eva Doerr, Isaac Ricca-Richardson (instructed by Barnes, Harrild, and Dyer Solicitors) for the Claimant
Sharaz Ahmed, Darryl Balroop, and Arman Alam (direct access) for the Claimant
Manjit S. Gill KC, Ramby de Mello, Tony Muman, and Harjot Singh (instructed by Twinwood Law Practice Limited) for the Claimant
Zane Malik KC, Colin Thomann, and Robin Hopkins (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Charlotte Kilroy KC, Michelle Knorr, Harry Adamson, and Sarah Dobbie (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Claimant
Edward Brown KC and Jack Anderson (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 5 – 9 September 2022, and 12 – 14 October 2022
JUDGMENT APPROVED SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS
Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift handed down the following judgment of the court:
A. Introduction
(1) General
These claims challenge decisions made by the Home Secretary that asylum claims made in the United Kingdom should not be determined here and that instead the persons who have made those claims should be removed to Rwanda to have their asylum claims determined there. Removal from the United Kingdom in these circumstances involves two decisions: first, a decision that the asylum claim is inadmissible – i.e., that the asylum claim should not be decided on its merits in the United Kingdom; and second a decision to remove the asylum claimant to a safe third country which in these cases is Rwanda. For any asylum claim made on or before 27 June 2022, the power to make these inadmissibility and removal decisions is in paragraph 345A to 345D of the Immigration Rules 1.
Paragraphs 345A – D of the Immigration Rules set out conditions that must be met before the Home Secretary can decide that an asylum claim is inadmissible in the United Kingdom and whether she can remove the person who has made the asylum claim to a safe third country. For present purposes (putting the matter in very general terms), the relevant condition for an inadmissibility decision is whether, before making the asylum claim in the United Kingdom, the asylum claimant had the opportunity to claim asylum in a safe third country but did not do so. If the Home Secretary decides that an asylum claim is inadmissible, she is permitted to remove the person who has made the claim either to the safe third country where the opportunity to make the asylum claim arose, or to any other safe third country that agrees to accept the asylum claimant.
The inadmissibility and removal decisions before the court in these proceedings were taken by the then Home Secretary in pursuance of criteria contained in guidance published by her in May 2022. Among other matters, those criteria explain how arrangements made between the governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Rwanda for the transfer of asylum claimants would be used. Those arrangements are the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (“the MEDP”). The arrangements provide for transfer of asylum claimants from the United Kingdom to Rwanda, the determination of asylum claims by the Rwandan authorities, and related matters. The premise of these decisions has been that by reason of the arrangements made in the MEDP, Rwanda is a safe third country to which asylum claimants may be removed. One set of inadmissibility and removal decisions was taken in late May and early June 2022. On 5 July 2022, following further representations and consideration of evidence filed in these proceedings (which were
all commenced on or after 8 June 2022), the Home Secretary made further inadmissibility and removal decisions for each of the individual Claimants now before usThe claims raise many grounds of challenge to these decisions. Some matters raised are generic; they do not depend on the facts of any individual case but are instead to the effect that the Home Secretary's decisions are flawed for reasons that will apply whenever it is proposed to decide that an asylum claim is inadmissible and/or to remove the asylum claimant to Rwanda. Other grounds of challenge raised depend on the facts of the individual cases and how the Home Secretary has addressed those facts when taking her decisions. The Claimants also challenge further decisions taken by the Home Secretary on claims they have made that their removal from the United Kingdom would be in breach of their rights derived from the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”). The Home Secretary has rejected these claims and concluded that these human rights claims were clearly unfounded.
The government's proposal to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda has been the subject of considerable public debate. It is, therefore, important to have the role of the court well in mind. In judicial review claims the court resolves questions of law. Judicial review is the means of ensuring that public bodies act within the limits of their legal powers and in accordance with the legal principles governing the exercise of their decision-making functions. In addition, Parliament requires that public bodies act consistently with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the ECHR: see section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998). The court is not responsible for making political, social or economic choices – for example to determine how best to respond to the challenges presented by asylum seekers seeking to cross the Channel in small boats or by other means. Those decisions, and those choices, are ones that Parliament has entrusted to ministers. The approach of ministers is a matter of legitimate public interest and debate and, in this instance, has stirred public controversy about whether the relocation of asylum seekers to a third country such as Rwanda is an appropriate response to the problems that the government has identified. But those matters are not for the court. The role of the court is only to ensure that the law is properly understood and observed, and that the rights guaranteed by Parliament are respected
(2) A short history of the proceedings
In late May and early June 2022, the Home Secretary took 47 decisions declaring asylum claims made in the United Kingdom to be inadmissible and deciding that the claimants should be removed to Rwanda. Her intention was that those concerned would be removed to Rwanda by charter flight on 14 June 2022. Each inadmissibility and removal decision came with removal directions to that effect. The decisions prompted more than 20 claims, filed between 8 June 2022 14 June 2022 2. Claim CO/2032/2022 was issued on 8 June 2022. On 10 June 2022 the Administrative Court heard and refused an application for an interim injunction to prevent the individual Claimants in that claim being removed on the charter flight. On 13 June 2022 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against that decision. On 14 June 2022
the Supreme Court dismissed an application for permission to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. On 13 and 14 June 2022 further applications for interim relief in other claims were heard and refused by the Administrative Court. The cases considered then were CO/2103/2022, CO/2111/2022, CO/2112/2022, CO/2113/2022, CO/2125/2022, CO/2126/2022, and CO/2129/2022. The litigation caused the Home Secretary to reconsider some of the decisions she had taken. This led to the cancellation of some removal directionsOn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King on the application of AAA (Syria) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT LORD JUSTICE LEWIS AND MR JUSTICE SWIFT [2022] EWHC 3230 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Raza Husain KC, Phillippa Kaufmann KC, Sam Grodzinski KC, Christopher Knight, Paul Luck......
-
AA + ORS v NHS Commissioning Board
...v Prime Minister [2022] EWHC 298 (Admin), [28] (Singh LJ and Swift J); R (AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3230 (Admin), [432] (Lewis LJ and Swift J). See also paras 3.3.1 and 6.3.2.7 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide ...
-
CD and EF (in the matter of AB (a minor)
...of State no longer maintains that the Procedures Directive is part of EU retained law, most recently in King v AAA & Others [2022] EWHC 3230 (Admin). The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”), section 1 and Schedule 1 now applies. Section 1 ......