Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

In a new article for Verfassungsblog, Dr Catherine Briddick (RSC) and Professor Cathryn Costello (UCD) examine the UK Supreme Court’s judgment on R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others), and the UK government’s “deeply troubling” response to it. In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State’s policy to remove protection seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. The Supreme Court found “substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.”

Read the blog here: Supreme Judgecraft: Non-Refoulement and the end of the UK-Rwanda ‘deal’?