Charles condemns ‘appalling’ Rwanda policy as High Court backs Patel

‘He said he was more than disappointed at the policy. It was clear that he was not impressed’

THE Prince of Wales has privately described the Home Secretary’s Rwanda asylum plan as “appalling”, it emerged last night.

Prince Charles is said to be frustrated at the Government’s policy as he is due to represent the Queen at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, this month.

The disclosure came as Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, defeated a High Court action to block the deportation of migrants to Rwanda, paving the way for the first flight next week.

It was claimed a source had heard the Prince expressing opposition to the policy several times in private and said he was particularly uncomfortable about it amid fears that it would overshadow the summit in Rwanda on June 23.

The source told The Times: “He said he was more than disappointed at the policy. He said he thinks the Government’s whole approach is appalling. It was clear he was not impressed with the Government’s direction of travel.”

Clarence House did not deny the Prince had expressed personal opinions about the policy in private. “We would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with the Prince except to restate that he remains politically neutral. Matters of policy are decisions for government,” said a spokesman.

It came as Mr Justice Swift rejected an attempt to injunct the flight next Tuesday mounted by a coalition of refugee charities, a union representing Border Force staff and some of the asylum seekers.

It represents a significant victory for the Home Secretary in facing down human rights lawyers whom she has blamed for obstructing a policy designed to deter migrants from making dangerous Channel crossings.

However, it will not stop individual asylum seekers mounting legal challenges against their removal to Rwanda.

The judge also gave the go-ahead to a two-day judicial review of the policy before the end of July and granted an appeal on the injunction which is likely to be heard on Monday.

About 100 of the migrants have already been taken off Tuesday’s flight after their lawyers claimed it would

breach their human rights. Just 31 remain on the manifest, although most expected to take legal action to avoid removal to Rwanda.

As Friday’s hearing opened, Home Office lawyers disclosed that six more migrants would no longer be removed on Tuesday.

Ms Patel said: “People will continue to try to prevent their relocation through legal challenges and last-minute claims but we will not be deterred in breaking the deadly people-smuggling trade and ultimately save lives.

“Rwanda is a safe country and has previously been recognised for providing a safe haven for refugees – we will continue preparations for the first flight to Rwanda, alongside the range of other measures intended to reduce small boat crossings.”

Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, tweeted: “Welcome news from the High Court today. We cannot allow people traffickers to put lives at risk and our world-leading partnership will help break the business model of these ruthless criminals.”

Government sources have pledged that the flight to Rwanda will take off even if there is just one migrant on it.

The judge’s decision came despite a last-minute intervention by the UN refugee agency, which told the court it had “serious concerns” that the “unlawful” policy risked “serious irreparable harm” to UK asylum seekers who were unlikely to get “fair and efficient” treatment and could face persecution.

However, the judge said it was in the public interest for the Home Secretary to have the right to implement decisions to control immigration and rejected claims that there was a risk of the migrants suffering inhumane treatment during the “relatively short” period before the judicial review.

He said: “I do not consider there is any evidence for the duration of the interim period that there will be illtreatment, refoulement [removal of refugees to a country where refugees are persecuted], or anything that gives rise to Article 3 [inhumane] treatment.”

The judge also accepted arguments by Mathew Gullick, QC for the Home Office, that it was in the public interest to deter people from making dangerous journeys facilitated by people smugglers.

The judge denied interim relief to two people who face removal to Rwanda even though he said sending them would be “onerous”.

Ms Patel is expected to decide if the two, from Syria and Iraq, should be taken off the flight. Following the decision, Campaigners said they were “disappointed” and “deeply concerned” for the welfare of those due to be sent to Rwanda.

Clare Moseley, founder of Care4calais said: “We have been granted permission to appeal on Monday as we are deeply concerned for the welfare of people who may be forcibly deported to Rwanda.”

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary,

‘We we are deeply concerned for the welfare of people who may be forcibly deported to Rwanda’

said Labour had always maintained the Rwanda plan was “unworkable, expensive, unethical and profoundly un-british”. She added: “Priti Patel’s plan won’t stop criminal gangs or dangerous boat crossings – especially as the Home Office is also considering 20 per cent cuts to the National Crime Agency which works to tackle the smuggler gangs.”