Church of England condemns ‘immoral’ Rwanda flights

Home Secretary wins two court challenges – but the plane’s manifest is slashed from its original 130

THE leadership of the Church of England has condemned Boris Johnson’s plan to deport migrants to Rwanda as an “immoral policy that shames Britain”.

Hours after the Government won court backing for the first flight to Rwanda today, all 25 bishops in the House of Lords, including both the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, said deportations and the forced returns of asylum seekers “were not the way”. “Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should shame us as a nation,” they said. “Our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, as we have for centuries.”

Their intervention comes after it was reported that the Prince of Wales had described the policy as “appalling”.

Mr Johnson said it was necessary to stop people-trafficking. The Prime Minister

refused to say whether the Prince was wrong but noted: “I do think it’s the job of the Government to stop people breaking the law and to support people who are doing the right thing.”

A government source hit back at the bishops: “Once again, they have not come up with any solutions. They say it is immoral but leaving people to die making perilous journeys at the hands of people smugglers is very immoral.”

Only seven migrants at most are due on the first flight tonight after more than 120 others mounted individual legal appeals against their removal.

The bishops’ letter, published in The Times, said the migrants had not had a chance to appeal or see family in Britain, and no attempt had been made to understand their predicament.

Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, also criticised the plan, saying it set a “catastrophic precedent”.

A MAXIMUM of seven migrants were due to be on tonight’s first asylum flights to Rwanda, even though Priti Patel won two court challenges that were mounted to suspend the controversial policy.

The last-ditch pleas for injunctions to block the flight were rejected, paving the way for the migrants to be taken to Kigali, the Rwandan capital.

Originally, 130 migrants were notified that they would be on the flight but the remainder will not take off after their lawyers initiated appeals claiming breaches of their human rights or that they were victims of modern slavery.

Home Office sources admitted there is a risk that the charter flight – thought to have cost around £250,000 – could be cancelled, although they have maintained it would take off even if there was a single migrant on the manifest.

“They are going to try to work out how to get every last person off the flight. They will try every trick in the book. There is no guarantee the flight will take off,” said a government source.

Court of Appeal judges yesterday rejected a last-ditch legal bid to block the first flight by charities Care4calais and Detention Action and the PCS union representing Border Force staff.

Lawyers for the three groups and one Iraqi migrant due to be removed asked for the injunction until next month’s full hearing into whether the policy is lawful.

Raza Husain, QC, argued that the judge who refused to block the flight on Friday, Mr Justice Swift, had wrongly decided the “balance of convenience”.

But, after an urgent hearing in London yesterday, three senior judges dismissed the appeal, saying Mr Justice Swift’s decision was correct.

Lord Justice Singh, sitting with Lady Justice Simler and Lord Justice Stuartsmith, said Mr Justice Swift had “conducted the balancing exercise properly” and had not erred in principle or in the approach he took.

He added: “He weighed all the factors and reached a conclusion which he was reasonably entitled to reach on the material before him. This court cannot … interfere with that conclusion.”

A second last-minute request for an injunction by Asylum Aid was also rejected yesterday by Mr Justice Swift. Charlotte Kilroy QC for the charity claimed the asylum seekers were “effectively guinea pigs” for a process that had not been properly tested.

The courts accepted the Government’s arguments that the policy was justified in the public interest to deter migrants from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys across the Channel from safe countries where they could have claimed asylum.

Government statistics reveal that 10,131 migrants have crossed the Channel so far this year. That figure was not reached until August last year.