Lawyers for the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, made their legal arguments on Tuesday.
Promises over the treatment of asylum seekers removed to Rwanda are “aspirational”, the United Nations refugee agency has told the Supreme Court.
The Home Office is challenging a June Court of Appeal ruling that the UK’s multimillion-pound deal with Rwanda over the processing of asylum claims was unlawful.
The Government has previously argued that a memorandum of understanding agreed between the two countries provides assurances that ensure everyone sent there will have a “safe and effective” refugee status determination procedure.
Other assurances include that people deported to Rwanda will be provided with “adequate accommodation”, food, free medical assistance, education, language and professional development training and “integration programmes”, judges were told at previous hearings.
However, Angus McCullough KC, for the UNHCR, said the promises were “no sufficient answer” to “basic and fundamental defects” in the Rwandan system.
He said in written submissions: “The assurances and commitments given by the government of Rwanda do not suffice to establish an accessible, reliable or fair asylum system in Rwanda.
“UNHCR in any event considers the assurances given in this case insufficient.
“The assurances are aspirational in nature, particularly in relation to such matters as ‘appropriately trained’ decision-makers and ‘objective and impartial’ decisions.”
Five justices at the London court were told that asylum seekers transferred to Rwanda under a previous arrangement with Israel were “routinely and clandestinely expelled”, prevented from making asylum claims and faced “grossly intimidating treatment”.
