Briddick, Catherine Author aut (orcid)0000-0001-7754-4784 Costello, Cathryn Author aut (orcid)0000-0002-6915-9939 Text xx# 2023 Verfassungsblog 2023-11-20 eng

electronic resource

remote

Computermedien

Online-Ressource

In R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) the UK Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State’s policy to remove protection seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. Rwanda is not, at present, a safe third country. There are, the Supreme Court found, “substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.” Should this occur “refugees will face a real risk of ill-treatment in circumstances where they should not have been returned at all.” We argue that the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning and evidential assessment are both impeccable, applying legal principles that are well-embedded in international and domestic law to very clear evidence. However, the UK government’s responses are deeply troubling, from the perspectives of refugee protection, international legality, and the rule of law in the UK. CC BY-SA 4.0 Briddick, Catherine Extra- Territorial Asylum Processing Off-Shoring Asylum Right to Asylum Rwanda Policy 342 https://verfassungsblog.de/supreme-judgecraft/ 2366-7044 Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH 10.59704/6ac71ea278f0af98 231120 10.59704/6ac71ea278f0af98 Converted from MARCXML to MODS version 3.7 using MARC21slim2MODS3-7.xsl (Revision 1.140 20200717)