the israeli army is carrying out a raid in part of gaza's largest hospital — al—shifa. idf forces are carrying out a precise and targeted operation against hamas in a specified area in the al shifa hospital. an eyewitness inside the hospital tells the bbc, soldiers are questioning people there. hamas is accused of using the site to conceal a command centre. i'm lucy grey in london. the other headlines... and we're live at the uk supreme court — which will shortly rule on whether the government's flagship plan to send asylum seekers to rwanda is lawful. join us live for thatjudgment which we will bring to you live, with full analysis afterwards.

and inflation in the uk falls to 4.6% — a milestone moment for rishi sunak, who'd promised to half the figure by the end of the year. exactly what the policy is. it is not, as sometimes thought, a policy of sending asylum seekers overseas, while their claims for asylum in the uk are processed by the uk authorities. the home secretary's policy is that people claiming asylum in the uk will not have their claims decided by the uk authorities. instead, they will be sent to rwanda, where they can claim asylum in rwanda. their claims will

be decided there by the rwandan authorities. if their claims are successful, they will be granted asylum in rwanda. if their claims are unsuccessful, rwanda is entitled to expel them from its territory. in this appeal, the supreme court is required to decide whether that policy is lawful. that is a legal question, which the court has to decide on the basis of the evidence and establish legal principles. the court is not concerned with the political debate about the policy and nothing in itsjudgment should be regarded as supporting or opposing any political view of the issues. in view of the public importance of the appeal, the court has expedited the production of its judgment, and as a result it is able to givejudgment within judgment, and as a result it is able to give judgment within a shorter period of time than in most of its

cases. there is a legal law that refugees must not be returned to their countries of origin, either directly or indirectly, if their life or freedom would be threatened in that country. that rule is called the principal of non—reformance. one of the principles is that they can be returned to their country of origin without a proper consideration of claims, since asylum seekers whose claims have not been properly considered could well been properly considered could well be genuine refugees. as i have explained, refugees must not be returned to their country of origin. the legal principle of

non—refoulement is laid out in the refugee convention, to which the uk is a party. there are provisions which have effect in other provisions to which the uk as a party. the un conventions against torture and other cruel and degrading treatment, the un international covenant on civil and political rights, and the european convention on human rights. it is therefore not only the european convention on human rights which is relevant to this case, as is sometimes thought. there are other international treaties which also prohibit the return of asylum seekers to their countries of origin without a proper examination of their claims. these international treaties are reflected in international law. in the first place, there are several act of parliament which give effect to the principle of non—refoulement, as set out in the un refugee convention.

they include the asylum and immigration appeals act of 1993, the asylum act of 2002, the asylum and immigration treatment of claimants etc act 2004. immigration treatment of claimants etc act 200a. there is also an act of parliament, the human rights act of parliament, the human rights act of 1998, which gives effect to the european convention on human rights. again, contrary to what is sometimes thought, the human rights act is not the only relevant legislation. the effect of the legislation in general terms is to prohibit the removal of asylum seekers whose claims have not been decided, to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be at real

risk of refoulement. what has to be decided is if the home secretary's policy breaches that prohibition. the asylum claims to which this is concerned, the basis of the rwanda policy, it is contained in home secretary's immigration rules, administrative practices. under those rules, asylum claims can be treated as inadmissible if the claimants had the opportunity to apply for asylum in a safe third country, but did not do so. the claimants can then be removed to any safe third country which agrees to accept them. the country only qualifies as a safe third country under the rules if the principle of non—refoulement is respected there. in accordance with the un refugee convention. it is the next step which is controversial in these

proceedings. that is the home secretary guidance to officials who apply the rules, that rwanda is a safe third country, that is to say a country where asylum seekers will not be at risk of refoulement, and certificates to that effect under the relevant legislation. there is no dispute between the home secretary and the claimants in this case as to the legal test which the court has to apply. the test is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers who are sent to rwanda will be at real risk of ill—treatment as a consequence of refoulement. if there are no such grounds, the policy is lawful. if there are such grounds, the policy is unlawful. it is argued on half of the home

secretary that there are no substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to rwanda will be at risk of refoulement. a memorandum of understanding has been entered into between the uk and the rwanda government, including an undertaking that asylum seekers will not be subject to refoulement. although the memorandum of understanding is not legally binding and cannot be relied upon by asylum seekers, the home secretary says rwanda can be relied on to comply with it. there are financial centres for rwanda to comply with the memorandum and it establishes arrangements for monitoring rwanda's compliance. as against that, the unhcr, the united nations refugee agency, has produced evidence of a

number of deficiencies in the rwandan asylum system. the relevance of that evidence is that if claims are not dealt with properly, genuine claims are liable to be wrongly refused, and when claims are refused, and when claims are refused, rwanda is entitled, under the memorandum, to expel claimants to any country where they have a right to reside. the only country where most people have a right to reside is their country of origin. so, if rwanda does not have an adequate system for processing asylum claims, genuine refugees may be returned to their countries of origin, in other words, they may be subject to refoulement. in addition, unhcr has produced evidence of a substantial number of cases of refoulement of asylum seekers by the rwandan authorities, including during the period since the memorandum of understanding with the uk was concluded. it has also

produced evidence of rwanda's failure to comply with a similar agreement, which it entered into with israel. when this case came before the divisional court, it fails to give proper consideration to unhcr's evidence. that was a mistake. unhcr has unrivalled practical experience of the working of the asylum system in rwanda, from long years of being there, and evidence requires serious consideration. the court of appeal was right to overturn the high court decision, and to consider the evidence again for itself. it concluded, by majority, that asylum seekers who were sent to rwanda are at real risk of refoulement. and that the policy is, therefore,

unlawful. the question for this court is whether they were entitled to reach that conclusion on the evidence. the court of appeal based their conclusion on the following evidence. first, rwanda has a poor human rights record. in recent times, bruce british police have had to warn rwandan rational nationals living in the uk are credible plans by the rwandan government to kill them. in 2021, the uk government criticised the rwandan government for extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture. there were also concerns about media and political freedom in rwanda. since rwanda has ratified many international human rights conventions, this evidence raises questions as to its

compliance with its international obligations. it is also relevant to the question over if rwandan courts can be expected to act independently of the rwandan government when deciding appeals against the rwandan government's decisions of asylum claims. secondly, unhcr's evidence is that there are systemic defects in rwanda's procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims. to mention only some of the points raised, they include, first, concerns about the asylum process itself, such as the lack of legal representation, the risk forjudges representation, the risk for judges and representation, the risk forjudges and lawyers not acting independently of the government in politically sensitive cases, and the fact that the right of appeal to the high court, which has existed in theory since 2018, has never, in fact, been

exercised. secondly, rwanda's100% rate of rejection of asylum claims from countries in known conflict zones, from which asylum seekers removed from the uk may well come, such as syria, yemen and afghanistan, although the uk authorities often find that such claims are well—founded. thirdly, rwanda's practice of refoulement, of which the unhcr gave over 1000 examples, which came after the agreement with rwanda was concluded, and fourthly, the rwandan garment apparent misunderstanding of its obligations under the refugee convention. the third thing raised is rwanda's failure to fulfil

undertakings which it gave to the government of israel, under an agreement for the removal of asylum seekers from israel to rwanda, which operated between 2013 and 2018, in terms of the agreement, asylum seekers sent from israel to rwanda were to be allowed to claim asylum there, and there was an explicit undertaking by rwanda to comply with the principle of non—refoulement. the agreement was therefore similar in those respects to rwanda's agreement with the uk. despite the terms of the agreement, asylum seekers who were sent to rwanda by the israeli government were routinely moved, clandestinely, to a neighbouring country to which they were liable to be refoulement. that evidence is not contradicted and it raises a serious question as to whether the undertakings given by

rwanda under its agreement with the uk government can be relied upon. as i have explained, the legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement. in light of the evidence i have summarised, the court of appeal concluded that there were such grounds we are unanimously of the view that they were entitled to reach that conclusion. indeed, having been taken to the evidence ourselves, we agree with their conclusion. we accept the home secretary admission that the rwandan government entered into the agreement in good faith, and that the capacity of the rwandan system to produce accurate and fair decisions can and will be built up.

nevertheless, asking ourselves whether there were substantial grounds for believing that a real risk of refoulement existed at relevant times, we concluded that there were. a change is needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement, and may be delivered in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place now. the home secretary's appeal is therefore dismissed. there is also a cross—appeal on behalf of one of the asylum claimants who argues that the rwandan policy is in breach of retained eu law, as well as being unlawfulfor breach of retained eu law, as well as being unlawful for the breach of retained eu law, as well as being unlawfulfor the reasons i have already explained. we reject that argument on the basis that under an act of parliament, enacted in 2020, the eu provisions in question ceased to have effect at the end of that year. the cross—appeal is therefore therefore

dismissed. the court will now adjourn. that was the court will now ad'ourn. that was lord reid, the court will now ad'ourn. that was lora new, the _ the court will now adjourn. that was lord reid, the president _ the court will now adjourn. that was lord reid, the president of- the court will now adjourn. that was lord reid, the president of the - lord reid, the president of the supreme court, handing down the verdict. they agreed with the court of appeal conclusions, and the government has basically lost. live now to our correspondent at the supreme court, helena wilkinson. very strong words? in the first few moments. — very strong words? in the first few moments. we _ very strong words? in the first few moments, we have _ very strong words? in the first few moments, we havejust _ very strong words? in the first few moments, we have just been - very strong words? in the first few i moments, we havejust been hearing thejudgment at the moments, we havejust been hearing the judgment at the supreme court, five justices considering the rwanda plan. in the last few moments, the supreme court has ruled that the government plan to send some asylum seekers to rwanda, their appeal has been dismissed. in other words, the government has lost in terms of its

rwanda plan. that is thejudgment that has been handed down at the supreme court in the last few moments. lord reid, here we were just hearing from, who handed down thejudgment on behalf just hearing from, who handed down the judgment on behalf of the five justices, they roar that they were substantial grounds to believe that genuine refugees, if they were sent to rwanda, there were substantial grounds in the judgment today, lord reid said there were substantial grounds to believe that genuine refugees sent to the country, rwanda, could be at risk of being returned to countries from which they fled. that breaking news in the last few moments from the supreme court, the uk's highest court, the government has lost its appeal. that means the rwanda plan has been ruled unlawful. that was what the five

justices endorsed in the earlier court of appeal ruling, which again ruled it was unlawful. they were looking at in particular if rwanda is a country will say for asylum seekers, and also was there a substantial risk that some asylum seekers, if they were sent from the uk to rwanda, once they got to rwanda, was there a substantial risk that they could be sent back to the country that they were fleeing from, and be at risk of persecution. that judgment in the last few moments that the government has lost its case, it had sought permission year after the supreme court to look again at a court of appeal ruling over its rwanda plan, and the government has today lost a significant blow to the prime

minister, rishi sunak, and his new home secretary, james cleverly. we will expect to hear a statement at some point from the government after thejudgment has been handed down. don't forget, we have prime minister's questions as well fairly shortly, at lunchtime, at midday. a significant defeat for the government, in that it has lost at the supreme court. that means the row under a plan that it announced more than 18 months ago, it has been ruled unlawful by five justices. —— the rwanda plan. joining me now is dr s chelvan, an immigration barrister and adjunct barrister and adjunct professor at southampton law school. interesting comments from lord reid, talking about what rwanda has done since the agreement was made between

the british government and rwanda. we have independent british justices, in british court, applying british law, to say that rwanda does not comply with higher international obligations to ensure that refugees who come to the country are treated fairly and properly. for example, lord reid specifically refer to afghanistan, yemen and syria, 100% refusal rates of those refugees claiming from that country. so they would be returned. the? claiming from that country. so they would be returned.— claiming from that country. so they would be returned. they were being moved secretly _ would be returned. they were being moved secretly to _ would be returned. they were being moved secretly to another - would be returned. they were being moved secretly to another country. | moved secretly to another country. evidence from the high commission on refugees, about clandestinely removals to uganda. in the uk, there is a 90% success rate for individuals from afghanistan, yemen and syria. the supreme court said if those individuals are sent to rwanda, there is a real risk they would be sent back to conflict

zones, where they would suffer real harm. , , , . , ., zones, where they would suffer real harm. , , , . , . ., harm. just explain why it had to come to this. _ harm. just explain why it had to come to this. we _ harm. just explain why it had to come to this. we had _ harm. just explain why it had to come to this. we had the - harm. just explain why it had to come to this. we had the court| harm. just explain why it had to l come to this. we had the court of appeal conclusions, the supreme court saying i agree with what the court saying i agree with what the court of appeal said. explain why it has had to take so long to get to where it is today.— has had to take so long to get to where it is today. hasn't taken that lona , where it is today. hasn't taken that long. because _ where it is today. hasn't taken that long, because we _ where it is today. hasn't taken that long, because we have _ where it is today. hasn't taken that long, because we have the - where it is today. hasn't taken that long, because we have the court i where it is today. hasn't taken that long, because we have the court of appealjudgment injune, and the hearing of the supreme court was the ninth to the 11th of october, and we were not expecting the judgment before christmas. the fact that judgment has come early shows that, as we have seen, it is a unanimous judgment on a single point. it was a home secretary who appealed the judgment. she felt the former home secretary felt that the court will be with her. i'm not going to comment on her resignation letter. the important point is that the evidence on the ground, collated in the main by the united nations high commissionerfor the main by the united nations high commissioner for refugees, the main by the united nations high commissionerfor refugees, the commissioner for refugees, the evidence commissionerfor refugees, the evidence of how the plan had failed israel between 2013—18, which dealt with at supreme court... their agreement _ with at supreme court... their

agreement was _ with at supreme court... their agreement was similar - with at supreme court... their agreement was similar to - with at supreme court... their agreement was similar to the l with at supreme court... their - agreement was similar to the uk? the home agreement was similar to the uk? tue: home secretary agreement was similar to the uk? tte: home secretary did agreement was similar to the uk? tt2 home secretary did not attach enough weight to that failure, because he said what the argument is where was that the government have the expertise and experience in negotiating the contract, they can trust what the rwanda governor to saying, and the supreme court said you cannot, because the evidence shows that rwanda does not protect refugees. this was a balanced judgment. the supreme court also dismissed the cross—appeal by one of the claimants, to say that since we have left europe we have retained law, which says that you cannot return somebody to an individual where they have no connections. this was not a win—win, it was a balanced judgment by our independent court, applying british law. {guild judgment by our independent court, applying british law.— applying british law. could be government _ applying british law. could be government appeal _ applying british law. could be government appeal to - applying british law. could be government appeal to the - applying british law. could be - government appeal to the european court of human rights question tia. court of human rights question no, the court of human rights question tt2, the government can't, and even the talk in the media of the past couple of days of a new treaty with rwanda,

the fact that lord reid specifically refer to the fact that there was evidence since the memorandum of understanding in april 2022, showing disquiet in the fact that there was no evidence to counterbalance the evidence of the unhcr, or undermine it, saying that there was clandestinely removals via uganda, that showed that, as the foreign office said, when the home secretary, the former home secretary, the former home secretary, consider rwanda, we should not be looking at rwanda on the list because of the poor human rights record. we should meet considering any country. this cannot no an considering any country. this cannot go any further? _ considering any country. this cannot go any further? with _ considering any country. this cannot go any further? with rwanda? - considering any country. this cannot | go any further? with rwanda? under schedule one — go any further? with rwanda? under schedule one of— go any further? with rwanda? under schedule one of the _ go any further? with rwanda? under schedule one of the migration - go any further? with rwanda? under schedule one of the migration act - schedule one of the migration act 2023, rwanda is listed in the alphabet soup of countries that the uk can send countries too. i don't want to predict, james cleverly is

now home secretary and said on record that he does not think we should withdraw from... there is no argument for withdrawing from the un convention on human rights. president biden in america, he said the good friday agreement, they would have understandable concerns about interference with that. let us celebrate the fact that we live in a democracy, unlike rwanda, as the supreme court said, there are concerns regarding the independence ofjudges, we live in a country where we have independentjudges, deciding these fates. what we should be doing is deciding refugee claims in the uk. tt be doing is deciding refugee claims in the uk. �* ., in the uk. it hasn't ruled out the possibility _ in the uk. it hasn't ruled out the possibility of _ in the uk. it hasn't ruled out the possibility of sending _ in the uk. it hasn't ruled out the possibility of sending refugees i in the uk. it hasn't ruled out the | possibility of sending refugees to another country, it specifically rwanda? tt another country, it specifically rwanda? , ., another country, it specifically rwanda? , . _ another country, it specifically rwanda? _ , rwanda? it is a case by case basis. if the do rwanda? it is a case by case basis. if they do choose _ rwanda? it is a case by case basis. if they do choose another- rwanda? it is a case by case basis. if they do choose another country, | if they do choose another country, it could be a full legal challenge. i think what the uk should do, i had a 93v i think what the uk should do, i had a gay south african client who got refugee cases delete worker status,

the majority of people who come to the majority of people who come to the uk to claim asylum are genuine. the un say that we should not sideline claims and have them decide it outside of the uk, we should determine it ourselves. stat; it outside of the uk, we should determine it ourselves. stay with us. we determine it ourselves. stay with us- we will _ determine it ourselves. stay with us. we will bring _ determine it ourselves. stay with us. we will bring in _ determine it ourselves. stay with us. we will bring in alex - determine it ourselves. stay with us. we will bring in alex forsyth. determine it ourselves. stay with l us. we will bring in alex forsyth. a big blow to the covenant? undoubtedly, this was a central plank of the government's illegal immigration policy, this idea about sending asylum seekers to rwanda, they wanted it to be a deterrent to stop the boats crossing the channel, something rishi sunak has made a very clear priority. the fact this judgment has gone against the government is hugely significant and begs the question, well, what does the government do now? this was a unanimous ruling from the supreme court, making it very clear that the government position was unlawful for all of the reasons that you have

been discussing. before this judgment, there was quite a lot of speculation about if this goes against the government, will that prompt a whole load of conservative mps to suddenly say we should withdraw from the european convention of human rights? that is something that has been kicking around in parts of the conservative party for some time. what was really interesting was that during the course of thatjudgment being handed down, it was made very clear that it is notjust the european convention of human rights which is forming part of thejudgment, of human rights which is forming part of the judgment, the legal basis for thejudgment, part of the judgment, the legal basis forthejudgment, i'm part of the judgment, the legal basis for thejudgment, i'm not saying that for a second it won't mean the conversations happen anyway, but it means that the government could still run into other forms of legal challenge. a big question mark over where the government goes with this huge policy. remember, the former home secretary suella braverman, in the skating resignation letter she issued last night to rishi sunak, she was saying if this ruling goes against the government, there is no plan b. well, watch this space. we will have to see if the covenant does have a plan b for something

that was so crucial to immigration plans. that was so crucial to immigration lans. ., , ., that was so crucial to immigration lans. . . ~' , that was so crucial to immigration lans. ., .~' , ., that was so crucial to immigration nlans. . . ~' , ., . plans. can you talk us through what we know about _ plans. can you talk us through what we know about james _ plans. can you talk us through what we know about james cleverly's - plans. can you talk us through whatl we know about james cleverly's view on the european convention on human rights? we have a new foreign secretary as well. david cameron. where do they stand?— secretary as well. david cameron. where do they stand? james cleverly, when he was — where do they stand? james cleverly, when he was foreign _ where do they stand? james cleverly, when he was foreign secretary, - where do they stand? james cleverly, when he was foreign secretary, the i when he was foreign secretary, the job that he had until a couple of days ago when he was moved to take over from suella days ago when he was moved to take overfrom suella braverman as home secretary, he had indicated he did not think it was the right thing for the uk to consider withdrawing from the uk to consider withdrawing from the congressional human rights. at this stage, he is in a different office, he now has a different policy brief, and there will be calls from some quarters of the conservative party for the government to consider doing that. of course, that will come with wider ramifications and conversations, but i think those calls will be reignited by the ruling from the supreme court. we will have to see if james cleverly's view remains as it was when he was foreign secretary or, now that he is home secretary, and this is such a central plank of

home office policy, whether or not that schiff�*s perspective. he home office policy, whether or not that schiff's perspective.— that schiff's perspective. he will have a task _ that schiff's perspective. he will have a task on _ that schiff's perspective. he will have a task on his _ that schiff's perspective. he will have a task on his hands - that schiff's perspective. he will have a task on his hands to - that schiff's perspective. he will| have a task on his hands to unite his party? == have a task on his hands to unite his -a ? , , his party? -- if it shifts perspective. _ his party? -- if it shifts perspective. without i his party? -- if it shifts perspective. without a | his party? -- if it shifts - perspective. without a doubt, his party? -- if it shifts _ perspective. without a doubt, this is not any discussion in the conservative party, whether or not the government should remain signed up the government should remain signed up to that conventional human rights. it is not a new conversation, but it is another clear dividing line in party. the you have to remember, we have had divisions in the conservative party for some time. they have bubbled up in recent days, with that reshuffle with rishi sunak on monday, with some raising questions about the ideological direction of the government, and what it means in terms of where the conservative party is sitting. it will reignite divisions and raise those questions again. we are respecting to get a response pretty quickly. it will be very interesting to see what the government have to say. although there was expectation government that this would go against them, they not sure. there was some suggestion that it might be a sort

of more of a fudge, not such a clear—cut no, that it is unlawful. that, well, if you did this and that... that did not happen, it was a quite clear—cutjudgment and we see how the government response. without a doubt, this is a hugely significant blow from the government perspective, to what was such a central part of immigration policy. we had from jeremy hunt saying the government remains relentless on its policy to stop the boats. there is also this issue that rwanda was a deterrent? brute also this issue that rwanda was a deterrent? ~ ., also this issue that rwanda was a deterrent? ~ . ., ,, . . , deterrent? we had the home secretary aaain deterrent? we had the home secretary again deteriorated _ deterrent? we had the home secretary again deteriorated the _ deterrent? we had the home secretary again deteriorated the government's i again deteriorated the government's commitment to stopping the boats will stop the number of channel crossings has come down this year, compared to last year. the government would point that out but there was a? over whether or not, as there was a? over whether or not, as the government