The UK is pushing ahead with plans to deport the first of many asylum-seekers to Rwanda on Tuesday, despite a series of legal challenges and claims that Prince Charles called the policy “appalling”. “.
Home Secretary Priti Patel is also preparing to launch an advertising campaign on Facebook and Instagram, warning potential migrants to the UK that they will face deportation to Africa if they Cross the English Channel in small boats.
The deportation strategy, described by Patel as “world-leading”, would see Rwanda send some asylum seekers to Britain in exchange for development aid, as long as the courts don’t step in to stop it. block that.
About 30 people are expected to be put on a plane to Rwanda this week, although legal challenges involving the individuals involved could bring that number down.
But Patel determined the policy, aimed at deterring future migrants, would continue, despite legal challenges and clear objections from Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne.
He was reported by the Times to have described the policy as “Terrible”; he will represent the Queen at the Commonwealth summit in Rwanda later this month.
Clarence House did not deny the report but “will not comment on anonymous private conversations with the Prince of Wales”. The statement added that the prince remained “politically neutral” and that “issues of policy are the decision of the government”.
Prince Charles said in an interview in 2018 that he would not be an “intervention king” or activist, saying, “I’m not that stupid”. But some ministers have privately criticized the prince.
A cabinet minister told the Sunday Times that the prince was “an adornment of our common life, but that wouldn’t be so appealing if he tried to behave the same way when he became king.” “.
On Monday, Asylum Aid, a refugee charity, will apply to the Supreme Court for an urgent temporary order to stop the government from sending refugees to Rwanda in its third legal challenge. two for government proposals.
It states that the government’s expedited process to bring asylum seekers to Rwanda is illegal, procedurally unfair and constitutes a serious obstacle to access to justice.
Asylum Aid’s concerns include that the plans involve such tight time frames – with only seven days for each asylum seeker to receive legal advice and present their case – that the process This process is inherently flawed and unfair.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals on Monday morning will hear a separate appeal against Friday’s verdict by Justice Jonathan Swift, who refused to issue a flight ban to Rwanda.
Swift ruled on Friday that there was a “significant public interest” in allowing the home secretary to pursue policy.
He granted judicial review of the policy but declined to issue a flight ban, in a legal challenge brought by a coalition of NGOs, four of the detainees, and the Coalition. Commercial and Public Services (PCS) launched.
Mark Serwotka, head of the PCS union that represents many Border Force employees, declined to say whether his members would boycott efforts to bring people to Rwanda; he declared the policy to be illegal.
“We have to check the legitimacy of these proposals,” he told Sophy Ridge from Sky News.
