hello, i'm matthew amroliwala, welcome to verified live, three hours of breaking stories and checking out the truth behind them. the uk supreme court has ruled that the government's policy of sending asylum seekers to rwanda is unlawful. in a significant blow to the prime minister, five judges unanimously ruled against his flagship policy to stop illegal migration. they said rwanda has a poor record on human rights and also that, if refugees went to rwanda, there'd be a a real risk of them being sent back to the countries they'd originally fled from. rishi sunak said he's now looking at alternative steps which would mean migrants could still be sent to rwanda. here's our political correspondent, ione wells. today was judgment day. does the government have the right to send some asylum seekers to rwanda? the verdict, no. the judges agreed there were substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk that genuine refugees could wrongly be sent back from rwanda to countries they fled from, something called refoulement. the changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be needed in the future but they have not been shown to be in place now. the home secretary's appeal is therefore dismissed. they also agreed there hadn't been a proper assessment on whether rwanda is safe for asylum seekers. has your plan failed, prime minister? - a big blow for rishi sunak, his flagship policy for stopping small boats crossing the channel found to be illegal again. his reaction... the governement has been working already on a new treaty with rwanda and we will finalise that in light of today's judgment and furthermore, if necessary, i am prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks. let me assure the house that my commitment to stopping the boats is unwavering. labour are not convinced. the most ridiculous, pathetic spectacle of all, his rwanda scheme, cooked up with his national security threat home secretary, has blown up. he was told over and over again that this would happen, that it wouldn't work, and it was just the latest tory gimmick. but he bet everything on it and now he's totally exposed. the central pillar of his government has crumbled beneath him. does he want to apologise to the country for wasting £140 million of taxpayer cash and wasting his entire time in office? what's plan b? that's a question that will divide conservatives. sacked on monday, former home secretary suella braverman and other tory mps now want the uk to pass a new law allowing them to ignore the ones behind thisjudgment. rishi sunak�*s actions now may well determine how theyjudge him. i think ultimately delivering the policy of stopping the boats is a confidence issue of the british people in this government. it is certainly a confidence issue for my voters in me, by extension, therefore, it is a confidence issue for me in the prime minister. home secretary, welcome to the dispatch box. - so, what next? we anticipated this judgment as a possible result and for the last few months have been working on a plan to provide the certainty the court demands. we have been working with rwanda to build capacity and amend agreements with rwanda to make clear that those sent there cannot be sent to another country than the uk. our intention is to uphold our agreement, to upgrade our agreement to a treaty as soon as possible. no backing down, the government still wants its rwanda plan to go ahead. how and when, though, are questions no—one has the answer to. ione wells, bbc news. live now to our political correspondent alex forsyth, in the central lobby. how big a blow is this for rishi sunak? , , , .., how big a blow is this for rishi sunak? , , , ., sunak? this is significant, and it is significant _ sunak? this is significant, and it is significant for _ sunak? this is significant, and it is significant for this _ sunak? this is significant, and it is significant for this reason. - is significant for this reason. rishi sunak has made it one of its key priorities to stop the boats, stop the channel crossings, this plan of sending asylum seekers to rwanda was central to that because the government said it would act as a deterrent to those small boat crossings. they put a lot on this. if you listen to the judgment this morning, which was unequivocal it is unlawful, you might have thought the government had decided to change course. not so. you heard rishi sunak there in the house of commons, and james cleverly, they said they are not abandoning the plan. what they will try to do is change what is a memorandum of us understanding between the uk and we wonder into a treaty, which they think will address the concerns about rwanda's asylum system. that could be problematic, we don't know how long it would take or if it would work. crucially, from a political perspective for rishi sunak, we don't know it will convert some angry conservative backbenchers who don't then the government has been strong enough. an awful lot at stake for rishi sunak. a press conference this afternoon, a lot of eyes on him. make no bones about this, this is a significant blow to be prime minister and government's immigration plan.- minister and government's immigration plan. minister and government's immiaration lan. . ~ , immigration plan. thank you very much. immigration plan. thank you very much- alex _ immigration plan. thank you very much. alex talking _ immigration plan. thank you very much. alex talking about - immigration plan. thank you very much. alex talking about a - immigration plan. thank you very much. alex talking about a press| much. alex talking about a press conference. we are expecting it in one hour 45 minutes, within today's programme. joining me now is zoe gardner, an independent immigration policy expert and campaigner. welcome to the programme. let's take this in stages. your reaction to the ruling? this in stages. your reaction to the rulin: ? . ~' ,, this in stages. your reaction to the rulin: ? ., ~ i. ., this in stages. your reaction to the rulina? . ~' ., ., ruling? thank you for having me. it is a hue ruling? thank you for having me. it is a huge relief _ ruling? thank you for having me. it is a huge relief to _ ruling? thank you for having me. it is a huge relief to hear— ruling? thank you for having me. it is a huge relief to hear that - ruling? thank you for having me. it is a huge relief to hear that the - is a huge relief to hear that the supreme court has unanimously found what i think your average man on the street could have already told you about rwanda, which it isn't safe for refugees. the government haven't done their homework. it's a strong judgment, and really clear that the system in room under is deficient and the government should have been aware of it —— in real wonder. they've wasted millions of pounds, a year of time and energy and political capital pursuing the deal. it never should have been doing it. it never should have been doing it. it wasn't about whether it was legal. it's about the fact this deal is beneath us, it's grubby, paying a poor country to take on human beings we don't want. that is not who we are in this country. we are good enough to take care of refugees and take this moment to change our approach. i take this moment to change our a- roach. . ., take this moment to change our auroach. ., . approach. i will come back to a coule approach. i will come back to a coume of _ approach. i will come back to a couple of points _ approach. i will come back to a couple of points you _ approach. i will come back to a couple of points you made. - approach. i will come back to a couple of points you made. in | approach. i will come back to a - couple of points you made. in terms of the approach, you heard what alex was saying, what the home secretary said, the response has been perhaps we will have a new treaty which assuage as the concerns of the court. in effect, continuing with the rwanda policy.— the rwanda policy. yes, it is extraordinary. _ the rwanda policy. yes, it is extraordinary. some - the rwanda policy. yes, it is extraordinary. some of - the rwanda policy. yes, it is extraordinary. some of the i the rwanda policy. yes, it is - extraordinary. some of the more extreme elements of even voices within government have been saying, let's ignore the law. these are our lawmakers who say, let's ignore the rule and send vulnerable refugees to places with proven danger. then you have rishi sunak trying desperately to save face, trying to pretend they planned for this and there's a way around it. if you look at the judgment, it doesn't seem likely they will be able to overcome the systemic and very serious failures in the asylum system which led to serious, people being put at harm. i don't think they will easily get around it. ~ , ., don't think they will easily get around it— don't think they will easily get around it. ~ , ., around it. were you relieved, did ou think around it. were you relieved, did you think it— around it. were you relieved, did you think it was _ around it. were you relieved, did you think it was significant - around it. were you relieved, did you think it was significant lord l you think it was significant lord reid made it clear exiting the european convention of human rights wouldn't mean the government would get the go—ahead on this, because we've heard it with elements of the conservative party saying if it went against them, that is perhaps one of the roots which was closed down today. {iii the roots which was closed down toda . .., , �* , today. of course, we've seen elements _ today. of course, we've seen elements of _ today. of course, we've seen elements of the _ today. of course, we've seen elements of the extreme - today. of course, we've seenl elements of the extreme right today. of course, we've seen - elements of the extreme right wing of the tory party calling us to follow putin's actions. it was good to see the judge emphasising that the protection of all our human rights are embedded in different international conventions, lots of part of our domestic law. and that is a good thing, that's the basis on which we have a claim to prevent torture from happening. you which we have a claim to prevent torture from happening. you said at the start of— torture from happening. you said at the start of the _ torture from happening. you said at the start of the uncertainty - torture from happening. you said atj the start of the uncertainty extreme right wing of the tory party. the truth is a legal immigration is an issue for the uk public, and when you look at europe, other countries considering looking at third countries, just exploring similar types of areas, not particularly rwanda. if it isn't the right way, what is the way to address the problem of illegal immigration? the wa to problem of illegal immigration? tue: way to address problem of illegal immigration? tte: way to address migration, problem of illegal immigration? tt2 way to address migration, and people will always need to move, so we are talking about people escaping from war, persecution and poverty, things they have to escape from. they need a realistic solution, not passing the parcel, saying not here. we need to work together to regulate the migration flows which exist, that happened despite the fact that across europe and the uk, we have right—wing governments promising they will be tougher and tougher and do the next step to stop it. it hasn't stopped it. the way we make it work is we regulate those roots, make them safe and formalise and make them safe and formalise and make sure we know he was coming in and support those people by funding our communities to support migrants, and then we can all benefit from what this brilliance source of new people and new ideas and fresh perspectives and new labour we need desperately. all of those things it can bring us, we can usually benefit from. we have to stop pretending we can stop it. from. we have to stop pretending we can sto it. ., . ~ from. we have to stop pretending we can sto it. ., ., ~ joing me now is siobhan mullaly, a special rapporteur on trafficking in persons. thank you for being here on the programme. i wasjust reading earlier today a warning you gave backin earlier today a warning you gave back in june earlier today a warning you gave back injune 2022 that the plan put forward by the british government wrist breaching international law on exactly the grounds articulated today. was it obvious for you for a long time that this would be struck down in terms of law?— long time that this would be struck down in terms of law? well, i think it was clear — down in terms of law? well, i think it was clear there _ down in terms of law? well, i think it was clear there were _ it was clear there were serious questions around is its compliance with international law and european human rights law. this is what i had highlighted over a year ago. it wasn't clear it would be the position taken by the sick freedom court, but i welcome the judgment handed down today —— the supreme court. and the findings of the court of appeal is which i was a member of. if you look at the judgment, they paid particular attention to they paid particular attention to the evidence presented by unhcr around the risks of refoulement, serious risks of those returns or there is returned onwards from rwanda, they were real and had to be taken into account. the plan was therefore unlawful, and was not only not compliant with human rights, but also the uk's obligations under the i951 also the uk's obligations under the 1951 law and other treaties. gieen 1951 law and other treaties. given all of that and _ 1951 law and other treaties. given all of that and the _ 1951 law and other treaties. given all of that and the court's - 1951 law and other treaties. given j all of that and the court's concern about human rights in rwanda, when you hear the government saying they could come up with a new treaty, is that likely at all to address that basic backdrop? there were two central planks to today, that both went against the british government. i think it close attention is paid to thejudgment, what i think it close attention is paid to the judgment, what the court is saying is they have to look at what is happening in practice, as well as what happened previously with regard to a similar deal between israel and rwanda and which had not been implemented because of guarantees of protection of asylum seekers and refugees. and then look at what they said would need to be done in order to ensure international law obligations were met. there is won't be met by adopting a treaty simply. they accepted capacity building and training was ongoing, that the asylum process may improve over time. but their conclusion was that now currently, and likely in the near future, now currently, and likely in the nearfuture, there now currently, and likely in the near future, there would now currently, and likely in the nearfuture, there would not now currently, and likely in the near future, there would not be the sufficient protections in place to safeguard against refoulement and real risks of treatment against national law and refugee law and the european convention of human rights. in terms of the general thrust of this policy, i read a quote from you saying transferring asylum seekers to third countries does nothing to prevent human trafficking. it is likely to push desperate people into more dangerous situations, rather than reducing traffic in, it will increase the risk of exploitation. that is the polar opposite in terms of what the british government puts forward as their reasoning to do it. it is all about this policy acting as a deterrent. you clearly think it acts in the opposite way.— as a deterrent. you clearly think it acts in the opposite way. there is a misuse of language _ acts in the opposite way. there is a misuse of language about - acts in the opposite way. there is a l misuse of language about combating human trafficking. in order to prevent human trafficking, what we should see a safe, regular migration routes. we need to make sure those victims of trafficking have effective access to asylum and other international protection, and denying that and pushing people into risky situations only makes people more vulnerable to human trafficking. it absolutely goes against that. preventing human trafficking, protecting those at risk and those victims of trafficking means requiring and ensuring that is effective access to asylum and international protection, and safe and orderly migration. 2, and safe and orderly migration. a final thought. this is wider than the uk. i referenced that other european countries looking at similar types of arrangements, this whole area of how you tackle illegal migration. you been talking about the increasing tendency to place migration in the criminal law enforcement paradigms. in your view, you think that is a mistake, don't you? tt you think that is a mistake, don't ou? , ., , ., ~' ~ you think that is a mistake, don't ou? _, , . ., you think that is a mistake, don't ou? , ., , ., ~' ~ ., ., you? it is a mistake. we have a s stem you? it is a mistake. we have a system which — you? it is a mistake. we have a system which protects - you? it is a mistake. we have a system which protects the - you? it is a mistake. we have a| system which protects the rights you? it is a mistake. we have a - system which protects the rights of refugees. we need to ensure that is implemented effectively. and then look at how we can manage migration to ensure it is safe, that it is regular, these risks of exploitation don't arise, and those arriving to new countries can live freely and can integrate and live the good lives in the countries. migration can be a huge benefit to destination countries. we need to make sure human rights protections, including to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, are protected. these policies of externalisation do nothing to prevent human trafficking, theyjust increase risky, dangerousjourneys trafficking, theyjust increase risky, dangerous journeys and trafficking, theyjust increase risky, dangerousjourneys and create a market for criminal networks to operate, to benefit from those at risk. ~ ., ., ., ., operate, to benefit from those at risk. ., ., ., ., , ., ~ risk. we have to leave at, but thank ou but risk. we have to leave at, but thank you but joining _ risk. we have to leave at, but thank you but joining us. _ plenty more reaction to that major story. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let's look at some other stories making news: the annual rate of inflation has fallen to its lowest level in two years. official figures show price rises eased to four point 6% in the year to october, a fall largely attributed to lower energy prices. the government had pledged to halve inflation by the end of the year, from more than 10% at the end of 2022. a city councillor has said a tower block in bristol that was evacuated over safety concerns was not built according to plans. more than 400 residents were forced to leave their homes on tuesday, with the council declaring a major incident. building surveys showed barton house would not be safe in the event of a fire. the french train maker alstom has put more than 1,300 jobs at risk at the uk's largest rail assembly factory in derby. the site has no confirmed workload beyond the first quarter of 2024 due to a gap in orders. you're live with bbc news. let's get more reaction to the major story from the supreme court. let's go back to westminster and alex. taste go back to westminster and alex. we have go back to westminster and alex. 2 have that news from the supreme court this morning, he deems the rwanda plan unlawful. i am joined by the co—chairs of a new conservative group of mps, but speaking in a personal capacity. your reaction to the judgment. personal c