Government forced to reveal internal recommendations after trying to keep passage secret over alleged violations ofhuman rightsinRwandait was done.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has applied to exclude from the High Court proceedings certain assessments addressing reports of torture and killings by Rwandan authorities. This is to a country that is challenging the legality of her Priti Patel deal to sendasylum seekers.
The maiden flight was scheduled to take off in June, but was grounded after a series of legal challenges,and several people who were due to board the plane later became victims of human trafficking.
The plan was put on hold pending a High Court hearing beginning next month to determine the legitimacy of the policy, but MPs 17} It also questions the government's baseless claim that it deters immigration across the English Channel.
As part of this case, the Foreign Office issued Advice was sought on Rwanda's human rights record, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued that its compilation was in the "public interest" because full disclosure would "would cause grave harm."
The Foreign Office has applied for a "public interest exemption" from disclosure. This is because courts must balance competing interests and potential harm.
The judge denied his request for six excerpts, with the exception of one particular word and his one sentence, and allowed his four excerpts for the rest of the matter.
In a written judgment, Judge Lewis said some of the material the government sought to redact had "already been made public" and could do no more harm.
A letter from Foreign Secretary Graham Stewart argued that sharing the contents of the extract would harm national security. Maintaining a strong coalition to support Ukraine and combat the activities of criminal gangs implicated in illegal immigration”. It is not immediately clear that the turmoil in relations between the two countries will affect either country's approach to Ukraine."
For each extract, it said it had considered "strong public interest in not undermining international relations with friendly countries" and "public interest in ensuring access to relevant information on this issue." litigation”, the material’s “evidential weight” and whether it is already in the public domain.
"There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that courts have access to the most complete information possible to consider whether a policy is lawful," he added. .
Rwanda was found to be a safe country, but another public hearing in July saidthat the Rwandan government itself had been sent a draft for review and asked to edit it. became clear.
Home Secretary Priti Patel and Rwandan Minister Vincent Virta signed a 'world first' migration and economic development partnership (Flora Thompson/ PA)
(PA Wire)
Christopher Knight, Trial Counsel Representing 8 Asylum Seekers, PCS Union, Detention Action, Care4Calais along with other petitioners opposed the Foreign Office's secrecy bid and three media organizations.
In its filing, the barrister said the Home Office had already produced "a significant body of evidence addressing the government's critical views of the Rwandan government."
At Wednesday's hearing, the barrister cited one of his documents written by an unnamed Foreign Ministry official. The official said that torture and "even killings" were detailed.
According to another document submitted to a High Court hearing in July, Rwanda "was initially excluded from the list of potential partners for the proposed immigration policy on human rights grounds. rice field".
The British High Commissioner to Rwanda said Rwanda "should not be pursued as a planned migration policy option" in 2021.
Reasons given included "recruiting refugees to conduct armed operations in neighboring countries" and "insufficient human rights record, regardless of treaty to which it is a party." Yes, critics of the regime, which has been criticized by the UK for extrajudicial killings, custodial deaths, enforced disappearances, torture and crackdowns.
Claiming the policy to be illegal, complainants expressed many concerns about Rwanda's human rights record and "concerns about violations by political opposition parties or those opposing President Paul", and many memos were flying around the foreign ministry over the agreement. Turtle ”.
Foreign Ministry officials provided further advice on any agreements with Rwanda. This included a 20 May 2021 memo stating that "he continues to advise No10 not to become involved" and that "a functioning asylum system consistent with its Refugee Convention obligations".
Six days later, then-Secretary of Foreign Affairs Dominic Raab said it was necessary to test "whether, with financial support, the host country could reach the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights." An internal email was shown.
Rwandan government officials denied human rights abuses and said at a press conference last month that the documents revealed in theHigh Court case were based on "misinformation."
A full judicial review of this policy will begin on September 5, and a final judgment on its legality will be heard on his October related legal challenges. Not expected to.
