the government believed, this rwanda policy would be a deterrent to people who are considering making that dangerous channel crossing. the government's perspective all it would be. that doesn't take away from the amount of political weight the government has put behind this policy. they have made it essential policy. they have made it essential policy when it comes to immigration. it is the government who has pointed to the rwanda plan. you will remember the former home secretary suella braverman talked about dreaming of putting people in place to rwanda. it is a government that has given such weight to this policy working and that is why it is so significant that the court has now ruled it unlawful.— ruled it unlawful. thank you so much. ruled it unlawful. thank you so much- just _ ruled it unlawful. thank you so much- just got _ ruled it unlawful. thank you so much. just got a _ ruled it unlawful. thank you so much. just got a reaction - ruled it unlawful. thank you so much. just got a reaction from | ruled it unlawful. thank you so - much. just got a reaction from the rwandan government spokesperson saying this is ultimately a decision for the ukjudicial system but we do take issue with a ruling that rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers in terms of the. rwanda and the uk have been working together to ensure the location of asylum seekers in society. for our exemplary treatment of refugees. throughout this legal process, we have been busy continuing to deliver progress from rwandan and working together to solve bigger challenges that africa and the wider world faces. we take our response 30 seriously and will continue to live up seriously and will continue to live up to them. let's go back to helena wilkinson. reaction there from the rwandan spokesperson, what has been the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling _ the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling that _ the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling that we _ the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling that we had - the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling that we had in - the reaction where you are? 1&1: that a ruling that we had in the last half an hour or so, the government losing its appeal in terms of the rwanda plan. let's bring in our legal correspondent. reaction? l bring in our legal correspondent. reaction? ~ �* , bring in our legal correspondent. reaction? ~ �*, ., ., bring in our legal correspondent. reaction? ~ ., ~, reaction? i think it's a legal omg, reall . reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really- such _ reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really- such a _ reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really. such a complete _ reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really. such a complete victory - reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really. such a complete victory for| really. such a complete victory for the claimants. it's an absolute demolition of the rwanda policy from top to— demolition of the rwanda policy from top to bottom. it's very difficult top to bottom. it's very difficult to know — top to bottom. it's very difficult to know by the government goes from here because not only has the court said that, _ here because not only has the court said that, european convention on human _ said that, european convention on human rights, in the barto said that, european convention on human rights, in the bar to sending people _ human rights, in the bar to sending people to _ human rights, in the bar to sending people to rwanda in the current circumstances, it is also an issue deeply— circumstances, it is also an issue deeply embedded in legal history with the — deeply embedded in legal history with the uk that you do not send a genuine _ with the uk that you do not send a genuine refugee who has fled persecution, to a country where from there. _ persecution, to a country where from there. they— persecution, to a country where from there, they could be sent back to there, they could be sent back to the country they have originally fled the country they have originally fled from — the country they have originally fled from and effectively, put them back in_ fled from and effectively, put them back in the position where they could _ back in the position where they could he — back in the position where they could be tortured or persecuted or come _ could be tortured or persecuted or come to— could be tortured or persecuted or come to other harm. what you have -ot come to other harm. what you have got from _ come to other harm. what you have got from the — come to other harm. what you have got from the supreme court here is a very emphatic statement about what british— very emphatic statement about what british law says about protection of vulnerable people. let'sjust break this down— vulnerable people. let'sjust break this down a little bit because the court _ this down a little bit because the court has — this down a little bit because the court has not said that the home secretary— court has not said that the home secretary does not have the power to send people abroad, so if the home secretary— send people abroad, so if the home secretary finds a safe third country to which _ secretary finds a safe third country to which he — secretary finds a safe third country to which he wants to send an asylum seeker— to which he wants to send an asylum seeker for— to which he wants to send an asylum seeker for their case to be processed there and for them to be settled _ processed there and for them to be settled in _ processed there and for them to be settled in the country, the court has not — settled in the country, the court has not said he can't do that. that power— has not said he can't do that. that power seems to exist, i haven't read the whole _ power seems to exist, i haven't read the whole judgment yet but there was no mention of that. the critical issue _ no mention of that. the critical issue is— no mention of that. the critical issue is the _ no mention of that. the critical issue is the nature of the agreement. the government went to court saying, look at theirs, we have _ court saying, look at theirs, we have got — court saying, look at theirs, we have got this marvellous diplomatic assurance, — have got this marvellous diplomatic assurance, lots of documents here to show _ assurance, lots of documents here to show that _ assurance, lots of documents here to show that the rwandan government will treat— show that the rwandan government will treat people fairly and these were _ will treat people fairly and these were very— will treat people fairly and these were very detailed documents. i read them, _ were very detailed documents. i read them, i_ were very detailed documents. i read them, i remember seeing them injune of test— them, i remember seeing them injune of last year— them, i remember seeing them injune of last yearwhen this them, i remember seeing them injune of last year when this case first came _ of last year when this case first came to — of last year when this case first came to court. i was thinking, this is really— came to court. i was thinking, this is really quite detailed, they have really _ is really quite detailed, they have really thought through how to get the rwandan on board with the british— the rwandan on board with the british government to make sure that people's— british government to make sure that people's right and fair treatment is protected — people's right and fair treatment is protected. the problem in that case all along _ protected. the problem in that case all along has been the documents and this is— all along has been the documents and this is the _ all along has been the documents and this is the conclusion the supreme court, _ this is the conclusion the supreme court, did — this is the conclusion the supreme court, did not take in account the current— court, did not take in account the current state of the rwandan asylum system, _ current state of the rwandan asylum system, history of allegations of atruses— system, history of allegations of abuses and critically, history of what _ abuses and critically, history of what is — abuses and critically, history of what is called in legaljargon, refoulement. that french word relates — refoulement. that french word relates to _ refoulement. that french word relates to the risk a genuine refugee _ relates to the risk a genuine refugee could be sent back to their home _ refugee could be sent back to their home country where they could be subject _ home country where they could be subject to — home country where they could be subject to ill treatment at they fled from. �* , . , fled from. and the five “ustices here have i fled from. and the five “ustices here have said * fled from. and the five “ustices here have said there _ fled from. and the five “ustices here have said there is h fled from. and the five justices here have said there is a - here have said there is a substantial risk that could happen in terms of rwanda specifically? exactly. that is the key, does that substantial— exactly. that is the key, does that substantial race exist? was it properly— substantial race exist? was it properly tested by the high court in decemher— properly tested by the high court in december of last year? they said no. was the _ december of last year? they said no. was the court of appeal in june december of last year? they said no. was the court of appeal injune of this year. — was the court of appeal injune of this year, right to carry out that test? _ this year, right to carry out that test? they— this year, right to carry out that test? they said yes and critical to this, _ test? they said yes and critical to this, there — test? they said yes and critical to this, there is always evidence from the united — this, there is always evidence from the united nations where the un said, _ the united nations where the un said. look— the united nations where the un said, look at this, there is no proper— said, look at this, there is no proper right to appeal. this particular appeal right has never been _ particular appeal right has never been tested. look at this arbitrary treatment— been tested. look at this arbitrary treatment of migrants in the past. look— treatment of migrants in the past. look at— treatment of migrants in the past. look at this — treatment of migrants in the past. look at this example people who have been sent— look at this example people who have been sent back to their home country _ been sent back to their home country. they used to very notable examples — country. they used to very notable examples of asylum seekers who had arrived _ examples of asylum seekers who had arrived in _ examples of asylum seekers who had arrived in a _ examples of asylum seekers who had arrived in a rwanda and were sent back— arrived in a rwanda and were sent back to _ arrived in a rwanda and were sent back to afghanistan and the court has gone — back to afghanistan and the court has gone through that line by line and decided the court of appeal had it right _ and decided the court of appeal had it right in _ and decided the court of appeal had it right in saying that rwanda in the current circumstances cannot be considered — the current circumstances cannot be considered to be a fair country and therefore — considered to be a fair country and therefore this policy is unlawful and therefore this policy is unlawful end all— therefore this policy is unlawful and all the various limbs of british law here — and all the various limbs of british law here. we just had a quick chat with lawyers to the claimant outside and they— with lawyers to the claimant outside and they are prettyjubilant. this is en— and they are prettyjubilant. this is an enormous victory for them after— is an enormous victory for them after an— is an enormous victory for them after an enormous long battle. the point _ after an enormous long battle. the point they're trying to make about this is— point they're trying to make about this is ”p— point they're trying to make about this is up to the government, whether— this is up to the government, whether they will strike a new deal with rwanda or a new deal with another— with rwanda or a new deal with another country. they cannot ignore the strength of thisjudgment in the way goes _ the strength of thisjudgment in the way goes beyond this human rights law and _ way goes beyond this human rights law and the wide obligations the government has to protect people. is it a really— government has to protect people. is it a really important judgment. government has to protect people. is it a really importantjudgment. it it a really importantjudgment. [it was a it a really importantjudgment. it was a unanimousjudgment it a really importantjudgment. it was a unanimous judgment as well, five justices. was a unanimous judgment as well, fivejustices. i'm not asking was a unanimous judgment as well, five justices. i'm not asking you what to predict the government will do, we will get a statement later on from the government but legally, what are their options? are there any? what are their options? are there an ? , .., �* what are their options? are there an? , any? they can't appeal this. that's it, is the highest _ any? they can't appeal this. that's it, is the highest court. _ it, is the highest court. effectively, the policy in its current— effectively, the policy in its current terms has been taken out the back and _ current terms has been taken out the back and shot, it's as simple as that _ back and shot, it's as simple as that it — back and shot, it's as simple as that it is — back and shot, it's as simple as that. it is dead as a policy. the question— that. it is dead as a policy. the question for the government is how they respond over the long term. they— they respond over the long term. they could — they respond over the long term. they could go back to rwanda and say, they could go back to rwanda and say. can _ they could go back to rwanda and say, can you give us a better deal? but the _ say, can you give us a better deal? but the problem is, when you look at thisjudgment on what it but the problem is, when you look at this judgment on what it says about the problems with rwanda's history, it's very— the problems with rwanda's history, it's very difficult to say at this stage. — it's very difficult to say at this stage, what they can come up with which _ stage, what they can come up with which will— stage, what they can come up with which will trump what they have really _ which will trump what they have really but — which will trump what they have really put to the court because it won't _ really put to the court because it won't necessarily address the underlying structural problems, to use a _ underlying structural problems, to use a un's — underlying structural problems, to use a un's language. the}r underlying structural problems, to use a un's language.— underlying structural problems, to use a un's language. they can look at different — use a un's language. they can look at different countries, _ use a un's language. they can look at different countries, may - use a un's language. they can look at different countries, may be? - use a un's language. they can look| at different countries, may be? they could. at different countries, may be? they could- the)! — at different countries, may be? they could. they would _ at different countries, may be? they could. they would have to take into account _ could. they would have to take into account this — could. they would have to take into account thisjudgment in could. they would have to take into account this judgment in what it says in— account this judgment in what it says in the _ account this judgment in what it says in the detail. this is going to beat _ says in the detail. this is going to beat dozens pages into the judgment about what the process should be and how you _ about what the process should be and how you should meet those. we are speaking _ how you should meet those. we are speaking in — how you should meet those. we are speaking in november 2023, almost 18 months _ speaking in november 2023, almost 18 months since his policy was developed. less than a year before a general— developed. less than a year before a general election. a general election where _ general election. a general election where the _ general election. a general election where the labour opposition, who are fighting _ where the labour opposition, who are fighting to _ where the labour opposition, who are fighting to win, saying, we don't believe — fighting to win, saying, we don't believe in — fighting to win, saying, we don't believe in this policy at all we would — believe in this policy at all we would scrap it. does the government have time _ would scrap it. does the government have time to come up with another deal before that general election and a _ deal before that general election and a deal that could work? this is and a deal that could work? this is an absolutely, it is literally legal dynamite — an absolutely, it is literally legal dynamite this to home office policy at the _ dynamite this to home office policy at the moment. it is also now a huge political— at the moment. it is also now a huge political problem for the prime minister— political problem for the prime minister and the new home secretary. yes, minister and the new home secretary. yes. hugely— minister and the new home secretary. yes, hugely a significant one, a massive to defeat for the government. there were calls before for the uk to perhaps quit the european convention on human rights. we had yesterday, the former home secretary's letter to the prime minister talking about she would come up from plan b, had warned rishi sunak about the legal obstacles in this case and even if the government were successful, there would still be obstacles, she said. it leaves the government in a very difficult position, politically in terms of their plans and policy. i think the question for the former home _ i think the question for the former home secretary suella braverman, when _ home secretary suella braverman, when she _ home secretary suella braverman, when she say this is all the fault of the _ when she say this is all the fault of the european court of human rights. — of the european court of human rights. is— of the european court of human rights, is whether or not, has she actually— rights, is whether or not, has she actually really followed the evidence in this case? because what the supreme court said today, of course _ the supreme court said today, of course this— the supreme court said today, of course this is about human rights, they said — course this is about human rights, they said very clearly this is about they said very clearly this is about the european convention of human rights _ the european convention of human rights and — the european convention of human rights and the minimum safeguards are put— rights and the minimum safeguards are put in_ rights and the minimum safeguards are put in place and about the refugee — are put in place and about the refugee convention which is a separate _ refugee convention which is a separate piece of international law. there _ separate piece of international law. there is— separate piece of international law. there is no— separate piece of international law. there is no doubt about that but they go— there is no doubt about that but they go on— there is no doubt about that but they go on to say very clearly that they go onto say very clearly that refugees— they go on to say very clearly that refugees are further protected. sorry— refugees are further protected. sorry about the sirens. refugees are further— sorry about the sirens. refu