When the Supreme Court found against the government on the Home Office’s Rwanda policy in November, the plan appeared to be dead in the water. The court made clear that there were substantial grounds to think that asylum claims would not be properly determined by the Rwandan authorities. As a result, it concluded that asylum seekers might be returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened, or where they would be subject to a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment – contrary to a number of international conventions.
The judgment gave the Prime Minister an ‘out’ from a controversial and costly policy, which was always unlikely to have a significant impact on the immigration and asylum figures. Supporters floated alternative ideas such as asylum processing in Albania, or offshoring claims in a safe British Overseas Territory, such as Ascension Island.
Therefore it was somewhat surprising when Sunak, despite having a reputation as a managerialist,
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in