ASYLUM-SEEKERS are at risk of being removed to Rwanda without proper access to justice under a process that is “inherently unlawful and unfair,” the High Court heard today.

Campaigners are challenging the government’s plans to deport asylum-seekers on a one-way ticket to the east African country. 

The judicial review, brought by charity Asylum Aid, follows a previous High Court challenge launched by individuals targeted for deportation to Rwanda, campaigners and civil servants’ union PCS said last month. 

Charlotte Kilroy KC, representing the charity, told the court yesterday that asylum-seekers could be deported to Rwanda within just three weeks of arriving to Britain, describing the Home Office decision-making process that leads to removal as “inherently unlawful and unfair.”

Addressing the court via a remote video link, Ms Kilroy said that this “highly abbreviated” process is “structurally unfit” and leaves individuals without sufficient time to challenge a decision to remove them to Rwanda, even if they have a legitimate claim under human rights law. 

Under the current process, individuals are given just seven days to find legal advice and make the case for why they should not be deported after receiving a notice of intent from the government. 

A decision is then made by the Home Office, often alongside a ticket to Rwanda, after which the individual is given a five-day notice period before a proposed removal date. 

Ms Kilroy told the court that this is “far too short” to allow individuals to have an effective opportunity to gather evidence and make their case. 

The Home Office has argued that, in most cases, seven days is sufficient because the “flexibility” of the system allows claimants to apply for extensions. 

But Ms Kilroy said that claimants are only given a further seven days if they are granted an extension, and in many cases the request is refused.  

“The procedure is seriously unfair, and gives rise to a real risk that individuals may be removed from the jurisdiction without having had effective access to legal advice and thus to the courts,” she said. 

The lawyer cited cases where asylum-seekers were not able to get a lawyer until the end of the seven-day time frame, and others where medical reports were delayed, resulting in claimants only obtaining crucial evidence for their cases after a decision had been made. 

The Home Office’s assessment of Rwanda as a safe third country for asylum-seekers “streamlines the administration of decisions” and allows “large numbers of claims to be refused,” she said. 

Lawyers argue that the Home Office is sidestepping its responsibility to process decisions on a case-by-case basis. 

Asylum Aid’s challenge is due to conclude on Friday with submissions from the Home Office. A decision for both legal challenges, including the judicial review in September, is expected at a later date.