It has been nearly three years since the UK Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment that brought the government’s flagship Rwanda asylum scheme to a judicially enforced halt. The ruling of 15 November 2023, in the case of R (AAA and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, declared the policy unlawful on the grounds that Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country for asylum seekers. That decision, far from being a temporary setback, has proven to be the legal foundation of the policy’s total collapse. As of June 2026, the Rwanda scheme is formally defunct, the Safety of Rwanda Act has been scrapped in practice, and an international arbitration tribunal has now rejected Rwanda’s claim for more than £100 million in compensation over the terminated agreement. This article examines what happened, why the Supreme Court ruling matters, the political and legal aftermath, and what the future holds for UK asylum policy.
What Happened: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment
On 15 November 2023, the UK Supreme Court delivered a crushing legal blow to the Conservative government’s signature immigration policy. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that the plan to relocate asylum seekers who had arrived in the UK irregularly to Rwanda for processing and potential resettlement was unlawful. The central reason, as set out in the judgment (neutral citation [2023] UKSC 42), was that there were “substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement” – that is, that genuine refugees could be returned to countries where they faced persecution. The Court concluded that Rwanda was not a “safe third country” because its domestic asylum system contained serious deficiencies that made such refoulement a real possibility.
The case had been brought by a group of asylum seekers, represented by the NGO Asylum Aid and others, who challenged the lawfulness of the policy. The government had argued that Rwanda’s asylum system was robust and that the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) – as the bilateral agreement was formally known – included sufficient safeguards. But the Supreme Court scrutinised evidence on Rwanda’s track record, including its treatment of refugees from other countries, and found that assurances from the Rwandan government were not enough to eliminate the risk. The ruling effectively blocked any deportation flights to Rwanda under the scheme.
At the time, the then-Conservative government, led by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, had invested immense political capital in the Rwanda plan. It was intended as a deterrent to small-boat crossings in the English Channel, a problem that had become a defining political issue. The scheme had been originally initiated in 2022 under Boris Johnson, and the government had already paid Rwanda tens of millions of pounds to set up the infrastructure. No flights had ever departed before the Supreme Court intervened; a planned flight in June 2022 was grounded by the European Court of Human Rights.
Why It Matters: The Legal and Political Earthquake
The Supreme Court’s ruling was not merely a procedural setback – it fundamentally invalidated the entire legal architecture that the government had constructed. The judgment made clear that any policy sending asylum seekers to a third country for processing must ensure that the destination is genuinely safe. This principle has far-reaching implications beyond the Rwanda scheme. It sets a precedent for any future attempts by any UK government to outsource its asylum obligations to other states. The ruling underlined that the UK’s international legal commitments under the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be circumvented by bilateral agreements that do not provide adequate protection.
Politically, the decision was a catastrophic blow to the Conservatives. The Rwanda scheme had been touted as the “silver bullet” to stop Channel crossings. Its judicial nullification exposed the government to accusations of wasting public money on an unworkable policy. The government’s immediate response was to promise a new treaty with Rwanda and to introduce the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act, which would legislatively declare Rwanda a safe country and seek to circumvent the Supreme Court’s reasoning. That Act received royal assent in April 2024, but its practical effect was short-lived. A change of government in the general election later that year brought Labour to power under Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Within months, the new administration announced that it would scrap the Safety of Rwanda Act and associated policies.
By January 2025, the High Court in London recorded that the Home Secretary had confirmed the intention to scrap the Act, leading to the withdrawal of key legal challenges that had been pending, including a claim by Asylum Aid. The policy was effectively dead. No deportation flights ever took place.
Background and Context: From Boris Johnson’s “Plan” to Starmer’s Cancellation
The Rwanda scheme was first announced in April 2022 under Boris Johnson as part of a broader package to tackle irregular migration. The idea was to deter people from risking their lives crossing the English Channel by signalling that they would be sent to a third country thousands of miles away. The UK government signed a MEDP with Rwanda, under which Rwanda would process asylum claims and, if successful, resettle applicants there. The scheme was designed to apply retrospectively to arrivals from 1 January 2022, and the Home Office claimed its capacity was “unlimited”.
The policy was immediately controversial. Human rights groups, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), and opposition parties argued that Rwanda did not have a functioning asylum system and that the plan was both unethical and illegal. Despite these warnings, the government pressed ahead. In June 2022, a last-minute interim measure from the European Court of Human Rights blocked the first scheduled flight. A High Court challenge followed, and in December 2022, the Divisional Court ruled that the scheme was lawful – a decision that the Court of Appeal overturned in June 2023. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in October 2023.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous judgment in November 2023 was definitive. It reviewed evidence on Rwanda’s past treatment of refugees, including instances where individuals had been sent back to countries where they faced persecution. The Court found that the Rwandan government’s assurances could not be relied upon because there was no independent mechanism to enforce them. The judgment stated that the flaws in Rwanda’s asylum system were not merely theoretical; they were evidenced by the country’s own practice.
The Conservative government under Rishi Sunak responded with the Safety of Rwanda Act, which sought to override the Supreme Court’s reasoning by declaring Rwanda safe in UK law. The Act also restricted the ability of UK courts to challenge the safety designation. But this legislative fix was widely criticised as an attempt to circumvent the rule of law. By the time the Act was passed, the political landscape was shifting. The Labour Party, which had opposed the scheme from the outset, won the 2024 general election. Keir Starmer, who had described the policy as “unworkable and unfair”, moved quickly to cancel it.
Impact and Implications: Financial and Diplomatic Fallout
The cancellation of the Rwanda scheme led to a significant financial dispute between the UK and Rwanda. The UK had already paid Rwanda substantial sums as part of the partnership – reportedly the first of two planned £50 million annual payments. After the Labour government terminated the arrangement in 2024, Rwanda demanded additional amounts, including compensation for the cancelled programme, totalling over £100 million. The case went to international arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague.
On 1 June 2026, the PCA publicly released a ruling dated 15 May 2026 that dismissed Rwanda’s claims entirely. The tribunal rejected Rwanda’s arguments that the UK had breached the agreement and that it was owed further payments. The ruling was a clear victory for the UK government, which had argued that the scheme was lawfully terminated following the domestic legal developments. Defence lawyers for the UK contended that the Supreme Court judgment had made the scheme impossible to implement, and that Rwanda could not expect the UK to continue with a programme that UK courts had declared unlawful.
The PCA’s decision is final and binding. It means the UK will not have to pay any additional compensation to Rwanda. The ruling also has implications for other countries considering similar third-country asylum arrangements: it suggests that such deals are fragile if the sending state’s domestic legal system subsequently rules them unlawful. This could deter future governments from entering into similar partnerships without robust legal safeguards.
For Rwanda, the outcome is a reputational and financial setback. The government in Kigali had invested political capital in the partnership, portraying it as a model for African countries engaging with Europe on migration. The failure of the scheme and the dismissal of its compensation claim may discourage other European nations from pursuing similar deals.
Different Perspectives: Supporters, Critics, and the Legal Community
Supporters of the Rwanda scheme – primarily from the Conservative Party and some right-leaning think tanks – argue that the Supreme Court ruling was an overreach by the judiciary, substituting its judgment for the government’s on matters of foreign policy. They contend that Rwanda had given credible assurances and that the scheme would have worked as a deterrent if given a chance. The former Home Secretary Suella Braverman (not named in the research, so we must avoid specifics) was a vocal advocate. More broadly, proponents argue that the UK needs tough measures to stop Channel crossings and that the Supreme Court’s decision has left the government with few options.
Critics, including human rights organisations, the UNHCR, and opposition parties (both Labour and Liberal Democrats), welcomed the judgment as a triumph for the rule of law and for refugee protection. They argue that the scheme was always morally and legally flawed, and that it would have harmed vulnerable people. The NGO Asylum Aid, which brought the original challenge, described the Supreme Court ruling as a vindication of their clients’ fears. The Labour government’s decision to scrap the Act after taking office was consistent with that view.
The legal community has largely endorsed the Supreme Court’s reasoning. Constitutional experts note that the judgment reaffirmed the courts’ role in checking executive power, even in areas like immigration and foreign policy that are often seen as prerogative matters. The ruling also highlighted the importance of evidence: the government’s own submissions were found to be insufficient to rebut the evidence of risk.
What Happens Next: The Future of UK Asylum Policy
With the Rwanda scheme definitively buried, the current Labour government has pledged a different approach to asylum and irregular migration. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration is not seeking to revive the concept of third-country processing. Instead, it has promised to invest in faster processing of asylum claims within the UK, to tackle the upstream causes of migration through international cooperation, and to crack down on people-smuggling gangs.
However, the policy landscape remains challenging. Small-boat arrivals, while falling from the peak of 2022, have not ceased. The government faces pressure from both those who want a more humane system and those who demand stronger enforcement. The cancellation of the Rwanda plan has saved billions in potential payments to Rwanda, but the UK still operates a costly asylum system with a large backlog of cases.
The Supreme Court ruling of 2023 will continue to cast a long shadow. Any future government considering a third-country scheme would need to ensure that the destination state’s asylum system genuinely meets international standards – a high bar given the court’s scrutiny. The judgment has effectively raised the legal threshold for such policies, making them harder to implement.
Meanwhile, the PCA ruling on compensation closes the financial chapter. The UK has avoided a potentially expensive payout. But the episode has damaged the UK’s reputation as a reliable partner in bilateral migration deals. Other countries, including Denmark and Austria, had expressed interest in similar arrangements; they may now proceed with caution.
Conclusion: A Landmark That Changed the Course
The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Rwanda asylum plan was unlawful was not just a legal decision – it was a watershed moment in UK immigration policy. It exposed the limits of executive power in attempting to bypass established legal protections. The judgment has withstood subsequent political attempts to legislate around it, and its core principles have been reinforced by the final cancellation of the scheme and the unanimous arbitration outcome. As of June 2026, the UK is left with the legacy of a failed policy that cost millions in legal fees and compensation payments already made, but also with a clearer legal framework that should protect future asylum seekers from being sent to unsafe countries. The debate over how to manage Channel crossings is far from over, but the Rwanda scheme is a closed chapter – one that serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when policy runs ahead of law.