Human rights activists have argued that government policies are inhumane and will put migrants at risk. However, officials said the strategy would prevent people from making dangerous crossings through the English Channel with weak small boats run by smugglers. The Ministry of Interior believes that the removal plan is in the public interest and should not be stopped. The latest legal dispute comes after the Supreme Court ruled last week that the flight to Rwanda could take place. The appellate court said it “could not intervene” in the original decision. Lord Justice Singh said: “We believe that the judge made a detailed and careful judgment that is even more striking in view of the time constraints under which he had to give it” in this “urgent and important case”. The judges refused to appeal to the Supreme Court against their decision. The Public Service and Commercial Services (PCS), which accounts for about 80 percent of Border Force personnel, had filed the case Monday, along with charities Care4Calais and Detention Action. A second case is currently pending in the Supreme Court after Asylum Aid, a refugee charity, requested an urgent interim injunction to stop the government from sending migrants to Rwanda. The charity’s lawyers argued that the process adopted by the government was unfair. Downing Street said the government’s’s flight plan for asylum seekers to Rwanda remained on Tuesday as planned. The prime minister’s spokesman said: “We definitely intend to have a flight tomorrow. That remains the plan.” As of Friday, about 130 people had been informed that they could be transferred to Rwanda under the new system. There are 11 people scheduled to be on the flight tomorrow, though Lord Justice Singh suggested the numbers could now be in single digits. Raza Husain QC, for two people at risk of leaving all three organizations challenging the government’s policy, had earlier said that Justice Swift’s decision last week contained errors of principle or was “obviously wrong”. It focused on the concerns of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) regarding asylum flights in Britain. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is adamant that the flight should not proceed. Mr Husain said the Interior Ministry was “very clear” that Rwanda was a “safe third country” for asylum applications “based on a complete misunderstanding” of the UNHCR’s views. He added that asylum seekers “should be considered as a particularly vulnerable and vulnerable population group”. He also said there were signs of danger for people citing an example of Rwandan refugees protesting against the 2018 diet cuts, adding that “12 people were killed, 66 were arrested and some remain in custody.” The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) therefore ‘ protests after their arrival “. Mr Husain told the packed courtroom that British law said “it was never a criminal offense to arrive in the UK without the relevant documents”. Prince Charles is said to have privately described the government’s plans as “disgusting”. But Boris Johnson again defended the controversial policy, arguing that the move was necessary to stop human trafficking on both sides of the English Channel.
