welcome to verified live, 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. he is under pressure from his own mps, with theirs urging him to ignore the laws. 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. lets get more reaction. joining me is a professor of law. thank you for being here on the programme. what in your view with a key part of the day's judgment from the supreme court? day'sjudgment from the supreme court? ~ , ., , court? the prime minister has announced _ court? the prime minister has announced that _ court? the prime minister has announced that it _ court? the prime minister has announced that it remains - court? the prime minister has - announced that it remains committed to sending people to a safer country. the short answer is that rwanda is not a safe third country. there are three reasons why even a new treaty won't work. firstly, rwanda has a history of acting in convention of mandatory fuel. it continued to do this during the negotiations for the rwanda policy and after the execution of it. so thatis and after the execution of it. so that is a simple reason for why you cannot trust the rwandan authorities. the other thing, rwanda has a history of political turmoil. one remembers the genocide were 5000 people were killed. that political violence continues, so much so that thejudgment points are violence continues, so much so that the judgment points are that the has been political killings and assassinations by the rwandan authorities to such an extent that the british police has had to warn them in this country to be careful. indeed, the government has shot at refugees in rwanda, killing at least 12 people. it doesn't stop there because one finds it has next to no understanding of refugee law, because although it has an open door policy in relation to other africans from the congo, it has little to no experience of refugees being sent over from experience of refugees being sent overfrom europe. indeed, of the 2022, it had only processed 152 applications. moreover, it is fundamental to any system that ultimately that has to be a right of appeal. it has existed in the law there since 2018. not a single appeal has ever been lodged. it is not working. might adjust out that the liability of the system is also open to question in this way. the majority of refugees coming to this question come from areas of profound conflict, syria, afghanistan, yemen and so on. rwanda has 100% rejection rate for those countries. in this country we allow 98% of syrians, 74% of afghans, and 40% of people from kuwait. plainly there simply is no sense of appeal. you kuwait. plainly there simply is no sense of appeal.— kuwait. plainly there simply is no sense of appeal. you list, and it is a lona sense of appeal. you list, and it is a long list — sense of appeal. you list, and it is a long list you _ sense of appeal. you list, and it is a long list you have _ sense of appeal. you list, and it is a long list you have taken - sense of appeal. you list, and it is a long list you have taken us - a long list you have taken us through, of the reasons why the supreme court have come to this view. it was unanimous. we have heard rishi sunak saying that they are going to try to negotiate a new treaty. do you think there is any likelihood at all of a new treaty actually addressing all of those key planks, those key problems you've outlined? ~ , , planks, those key problems you've outlined? ~ , ., ~ outlined? absolutely not. might i 'ust add outlined? absolutely not. might i just add that _ outlined? absolutely not. might i just add that the _ outlined? absolutely not. might i just add that the judgment - outlined? absolutely not. might i just add that the judgment as - outlined? absolutely not. might i just add that the judgment as a i just add that the judgment as a masterclass in the way in which reels off form, starting with international law, treaty obligations, domestic law, rules and legislation. it makes it quite clear that even if we were to alter our domestic arrangements, we still remain bound by the convention of torture, by the international civil rights. thejudgment is torture, by the international civil rights. the judgment is carefully drafted. a resounding affirmation of the extent to which the rule of law is maintained by other court. that comes as no surprise because the leading decisions look to the british supreme court in looking at the finest decisions when it comes to sanctuary an asylum status. before you go on to another reason, let me just tell viewers suella braverman, the former home secretary, sacked only 48 was ago, has posted a response. let me go through the key dates. she said the judgment is no surprise, it was protected by a number of people. given the current law, there is no reason to criticise the judges. the government must introduce emergency legislation. the bill must block off echr and other roots of legal challenge. this will give parliament a clear choice, control legal migration or explain to the people why they should accept ever greater numbers of illegal people settling here. in terms of the approach, the former home secretary has just laid out, the likelihood of that being effective? ., ., ,., out, the likelihood of that being effective? ., ., , , effective? non-whatsoever, because this is not a — effective? non-whatsoever, because this is not a case _ effective? non-whatsoever, because this is not a case of— effective? non-whatsoever, because this is not a case of tinkering - effective? non-whatsoever, because this is not a case of tinkering with . this is not a case of tinkering with an existing agreement, where you can rush back the rwandans and say we need to perfect the original agreement in place. there are systemic, fundamental structural problems with the way in which the rwandans do asylum law. there's no understanding of it, they concede on the basis that a person must come with documents. you must apply for asylum on arrival. they don't come on that basis. another thing which hasn't been mentioned, there had been a previous agreement between rwanda and israel. israel dealt with at refugees by sending them, very similar arrangements, and it made it clear there were human rights obligations and yet they did not observe those obligations. no right of residence was given.— of residence was given. professor, i've not of residence was given. professor, i've got to — of residence was given. professor, i've got to leave _ of residence was given. professor, i've got to leave it. _ of residence was given. professor, i've got to leave it. thank - of residence was given. professor, i've got to leave it. thank you - of residence was given. professor, i've got to leave it. thank you for. i've got to leave it. thank you for your time. i've got to leave it. thank you for yourtime. let i've got to leave it. thank you for your time. let me return to what some other braverman has just posted, the former home secretary. i will put some of those posts onto the screen. as i was reading out, saying it was no surprise, the judgment. one more post i didn't read out. let's go straight back to our political correspondent, she's there at westminster with more reaction. suella bravermanjoining at westminster with more reaction. suella braverman joining those calls, and we headed nro sara go from some of those mps you were talking to. —— we heard it and our ago. the implications politically are after thejudgment. ago. the implications politically are after the judgment. this are after the “udgment. this intervention _ are after the judgment. this intervention from _ are after the judgment. ti 3 intervention from suella braverman was expected. we had her scaling resignation letter only yesterday in which she accused a prior minister of not having a plan b. just to unpick what she said. she is talking about the government to introduce legislation, emergency legislation, which would bypass the european convention on human rights and the human right act, which enshrines the convention into uk law, in order to get this policy three. couple of points, the first is she's not the first mp to suggest it. this issue about whether the uk should signed up about whether the uk should signed up as a divisive one. it was always expected thisjudgment up as a divisive one. it was always expected this judgment from the supreme court would fuel that the bait. it is worth saying in the supreme court's judgment read bait. it is worth saying in the supreme court'sjudgment read out, they made clear it wasn'tjust the european convention on human rights that was proving an obstacle to the rwanda plan. but you are right, now other mps echoing that plan. i was talking to a couple earlier, to consider backbenchers who want to see similar action from the government regarding legislation, to bypass the international commitments to get this rwanda plan through. the judgment was worse than we feared. the previous court had acknowledged the legality of the rwanda policy. it makes a sweeping range of objections. notjust the european convention on human rights, the foundation of the ruling, but a whole other list of obligations, including united nations rulings. there is an immediate challenge of how we maintain and fulfil our promise and stop the boats by deterring people through this policy. thisjudgment deterring people through this policy. this judgment opens up a bigger set of questions about our relationships with international treaties. ., ., treaties. you heard the prime minister's _ treaties. you heard the prime minister's response, - treaties. you heard the prime minister's response, who - treaties. you heard the prime minister's response, who said treaties. you heard the prime - minister's response, who said their plan is to try and form a treaty with rwanda to satisfy the court. they mention looking at domestic legislation or international leisure ships. there was no commitment. are you satisfied with that response. what do you want to see from rishi sunak? we what do you want to see from rishi sunak? ~ ., , ., , , ., sunak? we are pleased they are sa in: it sunak? we are pleased they are saying it is _ sunak? we are pleased they are saying it is the _ sunak? we are pleased they are saying it is the plan _ sunak? we are pleased they are saying it is the plan to _ sunak? we are pleased they are saying it is the plan to stop - sunak? we are pleased they are saying it is the plan to stop the l saying it is the plan to stop the boats _ saying it is the plan to stop the boats and — saying it is the plan to stop the boats and proceed with the rwanda plan _ boats and proceed with the rwanda plan it _ boats and proceed with the rwanda plan. it may be necessary. one of the judgments was there was no guarantee rwanda wouldn't return immigrants to the place of origin. we proudly do need emergency legislation to get over this thicket of international implications. the commons — of international implications. the commons will start ready to pass it, but there _ commons will start ready to pass it, but there are lots of questions about— but there are lots of questions about getting it through the law. the government has known this has been _ the government has known this has been coming. we hope they have a plan b _ been coming. we hope they have a plan b. we— been coming. we hope they have a plan b. ~ ., ., ., ., plan b. we look forward to hearing it. when plan b. we look forward to hearing it- when you _ plan b. we look forward to hearing it. when you talk— plan b. we look forward to hearing it. when you talk about _ plan b. we look forward to hearingj it. when you talk about emergency legislation, are you talking about removing the uk from it obligations under things like the european convention of human rights, and other parts like obligations on the rights of refugees?— other parts like obligations on the rights of refugees? when the illegal act was going _ rights of refugees? when the illegal act was going through _ rights of refugees? when the illegal act was going through parliament i rights of refugees? when the illegal act was going through parliament in | act was going through parliament in the last session, we tabled amendments which would allow the plant to go ahead, notwithstanding the obligations of what lawyers may want to invoke. we are a fair and legal country, governed by law. we don't need the membership of international arrangements in order to makers goes a decent country. our common law tradition, our long—standing commitment to personal freedom is sufficient to ensure our government behaves well and we do not breach people's human rights. we don't need is international arrangements to be a decent country. there is a big challenge of how we communicate the culture we have is a fair and decent one. i object to the suggestion we only behave well because of the membership of these international arrangements. we need a commitment in law, and we want to hear it laterfrom the a commitment in law, and we want to hear it later from the government, that we will pass emergency legislation to assist the laws, democratically accountable to the british people. that is the key phrase, notwithstanding legal obligations or treaties made in the past. the law of the land in the uk will stand. . , ., , ., will stand. there are people who would be quite _ will stand. there are people who would be quite aghast _ will stand. there are people who would be quite aghast at - will stand. there are people who would be quite aghast at the - would be quite aghast at the principle of withdrawing from some of those european conventions on human rights and the protection of refugees. what would you say to them questio the convention of human rights had some clear principles when it was brought in, to protect the totalitarian nightmare. that convention _ the totalitarian nightmare. that convention has _ the totalitarian nightmare. that convention has evolved from its original— convention has evolved from its original principle, it's been interpreted over the years by lawyers _ interpreted over the years by lawyers. it has lost touch with its original— lawyers. it has lost touch with its original principles. the idea leaving _ original principles. the idea leaving the echr would mean we no longer— leaving the echr would mean we no longer had _ leaving the echr would mean we no longer had a commitment to human rights _ longer had a commitment to human rights is _ longer had a commitment to human rights is not — longer had a commitment to human rights is not true. we can talk about— rights is not true. we can talk about the _ rights is not true. we can talk about the technicalities, this is hollamon's roll, but we need to take stock— hollamon's roll, but we need to take stock of— hollamon's roll, but we need to take stock of the — hollamon's roll, but we need to take stock of the big picture. who runs this country, who is responsible for the borders? the judgment today does cast out— the borders? the judgment today does cast out whether it is the uk parliament. following the vote in 2016 and — parliament. following the vote in 2016 and 2019 we need to make sure parliament— 2016 and 2019 we need to make sure parliament has sovereignty, and that is the _ parliament has sovereignty, and that is the government'sjob. we parliament has sovereignty, and that is the government's job.— is the government's 'ob. we did hear from rishi sunak, _ is the government's job. we did hear from rishi sunak, who _ is the government's job. we did hear from rishi sunak, who said - is the government's job. we did hear from rishi sunak, who said if - is the government's job. we did hear from rishi sunak, who said if this - from rishi sunak, who said if this plan is frustrated he would change laws and revisit international leisure ships. there was no further commitment on what it means. the sense you get from the government is they are not at this stage looking at going down the path of withdrawing from the european convention on human rights. you hear the pressure from some in the conserver party who want the prime minister to consider something along those lines, not least well braverman. there will be focused on the press conference which will happen in about half—an—hour. alex, thank you. around the world and across the uk, you're watching 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 4.6% in the year to october — a fall largely attribut