R (on the application of AAA and Others) v The Secretary of State [2023]
Share
R (on the application of AAA and Others) v The Secretary of State [2023] UKSC 42 provides a critical examination of the government's use of prerogative power and the judicial approach to constitutional principles. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State's policy of sending asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda to have their claims processed there was illegal. The decision marked a significant moment in the interplay between government policy, human rights, and judicial oversight.
The policy, which had been heavily contested, was designed to address the challenges posed by the increasing number of asylum seekers entering the UK. The government argued that sending asylum applicants to Rwanda would act as a deterrent to illegal immigration and reduce the strain on the UK’s asylum system. However, the policy faced legal challenges on the grounds that it violated international and domestic law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement—the prohibition against returning individuals to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld the majority ruling of the Court of Appeal, which had found that the policy was unlawful. Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones, joined by Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, and Lord Sales, reasoned that the evidence presented showed a genuine risk that asylum claims in Rwanda could be improperly rejected, leading to the refoulement of asylum seekers. The court found that the Divisional Court had failed to properly consider extensive evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which highlighted structural issues within Rwanda's asylum system that could result in the improper rejection of claims.
The Supreme Court's decision also reflected on the broader constitutional principles at play. The court emphasised that in matters involving human rights, all relevant evidence must be carefully considered, even when the government invokes its expertise in foreign policy and international agreements. In this case, the government had argued that the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwandan governments was sufficient to address concerns about Rwanda's asylum system. However, the Supreme Court found that this agreement did not adequately mitigate the risks, given Rwanda's history of failing to uphold similar commitments and its past violations of the principle of non-refoulement.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court's ruling underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinising executive actions, especially when such actions have profound implications for human rights. While the government has a degree of discretion in foreign policy matters, this case demonstrates that courts will not shy away from intervening when there is a real risk that government policies may lead to human rights violations. The decision reaffirms the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining the balance between executive power and individual rights.
Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the cross-appeal concerning the continued applicability of certain elements of EU law in UK domestic law. The claimants had argued that if EU asylum law principles were still in effect, the policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would be illegal. However, the Supreme Court found that post-Brexit legislation had explicitly repealed relevant EU laws, and therefore, this argument did not hold.
In conclusion, R (on the application of AAA and Others) v The Secretary of State [2023] UKSC 42 is a landmark case that highlights the limits of government prerogative power, especially in the context of human rights. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional principles and ensuring that government policies comply with both domestic and international legal standards. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that courts play in safeguarding individual rights against potentially overreaching executive actions.
