The first flight scheduled to take refugees to Rwanda on Tuesday could be cancelled because of a late flurry of individual legal challenges, government sources have said.
As Home Office lawyers fight two legal challenges from campaigners and charities on Monday, officials within the Home Office have conceded that the plane may not take off because of challenges from lawyers working on behalf of refugees who have been told they will be sent to the east African country.
The development comes after a coalition of two refugee charities, Detention Action and Care4Calais, and the PCS union, which represents Border Force staff, were granted leave on Friday to appeal against the rejection of their injunction on Monday morning. The charity Asylum Aid, backed by Freedom from Torture, will mount a fresh attempt to stop the flight in the high court in the afternoon.
Although it was reported that 130 people who had come to the UK had been given “removal directions”, government sources said the number of those who might make it on to the plane to Rwanda was dwindling.
“I think it could be cancelled,” said a government source. “This is due to individual cases rather than a blanket challenge.”
Lawyers acting on behalf of those earmarked for removal are said either to have lodged legal appeals over the weekend or warned they would do so on Monday or Tuesday. Many are doing so under the Human Rights Act or modern slavery legislation.
An Iranian human rights whistleblower – who was told last week he would be flown to the east African country despite fleeing to the UK after giving first-hand testimony of potential violations by the Iranian government – is among those to have received a letter this weekend saying he will not be sent to Rwanda.
The man, whose plight was first highlighted in the Guardian, received a letter from the Home Office, which was signed off on Sunday, saying he would not be removed on Tuesday, but said the fear of another attempt at deportation remained.
“I am still very stressed about what will happen next,” he said.
A Spanish airline is understood to have agreed to undertake the deportation flight on behalf of the Home Office. According to Civil Aviation Authority records, Privilege Style has been granted a permit to fly to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, on Tuesday at 9.30pm from Stansted airport in Essex.
Care4Calais said on Monday that just 10 refugees due to be on the first flight out of the UK had since been told by the Home Office that would still be the case.
The court of appeal will rule on whether all flights should be grounded until a judicial review on the Rwanda asylum policy is heard next month.
Priti Patel, the home secretary, has maintained that the offshoring policy will help to stop the growing number of people crossing the Channel in small boats to find sanctuary in the UK.
Questions remain over the status of those who have been threatened with deportation.
The Guardian understands that three age-disputed children who the Home Office declared to be adults and detained in preparation to be flown to Rwanda have now been released. It is understood concerns have been raised about whether at least three more detainees threatened with removal to the east African country are children rather than adults.
Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BST
The Refugee Council said many of the people who were initially due to be on Tuesday’s flight were children. The British Dental Association said it did not recognise the Home Office’s technique of using dental checks to work out a person’s age.
Boris Johnson defended the Rwanda plan despite reported criticism from the Prince of Wales, who was quoted this weekend as describing it as “appalling”.
The prime minister insisted the plan was aimed at breaking the business model of people-trafficking gangs.
Asked if Charles was wrong, Johnson told LBC Radio: “What I don’t think we should support is continued activity by criminal gangs.”
In an article for the Telegraph, Rwanda’s high commissioner, Johnston Busingye, insisted the country would be a “safe haven”.
Busingye said he was disappointed that critics had questioned Rwanda’s motives for agreeing the scheme and doubted its ability to provide a safe haven to vulnerable asylum seekers.
Source: Guardian
