no, that it is unlawful. 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? we 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 believed, this rwanda policy would be a deterrent to people who are considering making that dangerous channel crossing. the government's perspective all it would be. that doesn't take away from the amount of political weight the government has put behind this policy. they have made it essential policy. they have made it essential policy when it comes to immigration. it is the government who has pointed to the rwanda plan. you will remember the former home secretary suella braverman talked about dreaming of putting people in place to rwanda. it is a government that has given such weight to this policy working and that is why it is so significant that the court has now ruled it unlawful.— ruled it unlawful. thank you so much. ruled it unlawful. thank you so much- just _ ruled it unlawful. thank you so much- just got _ ruled it unlawful. thank you so much. just got a _ ruled it unlawful. thank you so much. just got a reaction - ruled it unlawful. thank you so much. just got a reaction from | ruled it unlawful. thank you so - much. just got a reaction from the rwandan government spokesperson saying this is ultimately a decision for the ukjudicial system but we do take issue with a ruling that rwanda is not a safe country for asylum

seekers in terms of the. rwanda and the uk have been working together to ensure the location of asylum seekers in society. for our exemplary treatment of refugees. throughout this legal process, we have been busy continuing to deliver progress from rwandan and working together to solve bigger challenges that africa and the wider world faces. we take our response 30 seriously and will continue to live up seriously and will continue to live up to them. let's go back to helena wilkinson. reaction there from the rwandan spokesperson, what has been the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling _ the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling that _ the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling that we _ the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling that we had - the reaction where you are? yes, that a ruling that we had in - the reaction where you are? 1&1: that a ruling that we had in the last half an hour or so, the government losing its appeal in terms of the rwanda plan. let's bring in our legal correspondent.

reaction? l bring in our legal correspondent. reaction? ~ �* , bring in our legal correspondent. reaction? ~ �*, ., ., bring in our legal correspondent. reaction? ~ ., ~, reaction? i think it's a legal omg, reall . reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really- such _ reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really- such a _ reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really. such a complete _ reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really. such a complete victory - reaction? i think it's a legal omg, really. such a complete victory for| really. such a complete victory for the claimants. it's an absolute demolition of the rwanda policy from top to— demolition of the rwanda policy from top to bottom. it's very difficult top to bottom. it's very difficult to know — top to bottom. it's very difficult to know by the government goes from here because not only has the court said that, _ here because not only has the court said that, european convention on human _ said that, european convention on human rights, in the barto said that, european convention on human rights, in the bar to sending people _ human rights, in the bar to sending people to _ human rights, in the bar to sending people to rwanda in the current circumstances, it is also an issue deeply— circumstances, it is also an issue deeply embedded in legal history with the — deeply embedded in legal history with the uk that you do not send a genuine _ with the uk that you do not send a genuine refugee who has fled persecution, to a country where from there. _ persecution, to a country where from there. they— persecution, to a country where from there, they could be sent back to there, they could be sent back to the country they have originally fled the country they have originally fled from — the country they have originally fled from and effectively, put them back in_ fled from and effectively, put them back in the position where they could _ back in the position where they could he — back in the position where they could be tortured or persecuted or come _ could be tortured or persecuted or come to— could be tortured or persecuted or come to other harm. what you have -ot come to other harm. what you have got from _ come to other harm. what you have got from the — come to other harm. what you have got from the supreme court here is a

very emphatic statement about what british— very emphatic statement about what british law says about protection of vulnerable people. let'sjust break this down— vulnerable people. let'sjust break this down a little bit because the court _ this down a little bit because the court has — this down a little bit because the court has not said that the home secretary— court has not said that the home secretary does not have the power to send people abroad, so if the home secretary— send people abroad, so if the home secretary finds a safe third country to which _ secretary finds a safe third country to which he — secretary finds a safe third country to which he wants to send an asylum seeker— to which he wants to send an asylum seeker for— to which he wants to send an asylum seeker for their case to be processed there and for them to be settled _ processed there and for them to be settled in _ processed there and for them to be settled in the country, the court has not — settled in the country, the court has not said he can't do that. that power— has not said he can't do that. that power seems to exist, i haven't read the whole _ power seems to exist, i haven't read the whole judgment yet but there was no mention of that. the critical issue _ no mention of that. the critical issue is— no mention of that. the critical issue is the _ no mention of that. the critical issue is the nature of the agreement. the government went to court saying, look at theirs, we have _ court saying, look at theirs, we have got — court saying, look at theirs, we have got this marvellous diplomatic assurance, — have got this marvellous diplomatic assurance, lots of documents here to show _ assurance, lots of documents here to show that _ assurance, lots of documents here to show that the rwandan government will treat— show that the rwandan government will treat people fairly and these were _ will treat people fairly and these were very— will treat people fairly and these were very detailed documents. i read them, _ were very detailed documents. i read them, i_ were very detailed documents. i read them, i remember seeing them injune of test— them, i remember seeing them injune of last year— them, i remember seeing them injune of last yearwhen this them, i remember seeing them injune of last year when this case first came _ of last year when this case first came to — of last year when this case first came to court. i was thinking, this

is really— came to court. i was thinking, this is really quite detailed, they have really _ is really quite detailed, they have really thought through how to get the rwandan on board with the british— the rwandan on board with the british government to make sure that people's— british government to make sure that people's right and fair treatment is protected — people's right and fair treatment is protected. the problem in that case all along _ protected. the problem in that case all along has been the documents and this is— all along has been the documents and this is the _ all along has been the documents and this is the conclusion the supreme court, _ this is the conclusion the supreme court, did — this is the conclusion the supreme court, did not take in account the current— court, did not take in account the current state of the rwandan asylum system, _ current state of the rwandan asylum system, history of allegations of atruses— system, history of allegations of abuses and critically, history of what _ abuses and critically, history of what is — abuses and critically, history of what is called in legaljargon, refoulement. that french word relates — refoulement. that french word relates to _ refoulement. that french word relates to the risk a genuine refugee _ relates to the risk a genuine refugee could be sent back to their home _ refugee could be sent back to their home country where they could be subject _ home country where they could be subject to — home country where they could be subject to ill treatment at they fled from. �* , . , fled from. and the five “ustices here have i fled from. and the five “ustices here have said * fled from. and the five “ustices here have said there _ fled from. and the five “ustices here have said there is h fled from. and the five justices here have said there is a - here have said there is a substantial risk that could happen in terms of rwanda specifically? exactly. that is the key, does that

substantial— exactly. that is the key, does that substantial race exist? was it properly— substantial race exist? was it properly tested by the high court in decemher— properly tested by the high court in december of last year? they said no. was the _ december of last year? they said no. was the court of appeal in june december of last year? they said no. was the court of appeal injune of this year. — was the court of appeal injune of this year, right to carry out that test? _ this year, right to carry out that test? they— this year, right to carry out that test? they said yes and critical to this, _ test? they said yes and critical to this, there — test? they said yes and critical to this, there is always evidence from the united — this, there is always evidence from the united nations where the un said, _ the united nations where the un said. look— the united nations where the un said, look at this, there is no proper— said, look at this, there is no proper right to appeal. this particular appeal right has never been _ particular appeal right has never been tested. look at this arbitrary treatment— been tested. look at this arbitrary treatment of migrants in the past. look— treatment of migrants in the past. look at— treatment of migrants in the past. look at this — treatment of migrants in the past. look at this example people who have been sent— look at this example people who have been sent back to their home country _ been sent back to their home country. they used to very notable examples — country. they used to very notable examples of asylum seekers who had arrived _ examples of asylum seekers who had arrived in _ examples of asylum seekers who had arrived in a _ examples of asylum seekers who had arrived in a rwanda and were sent back— arrived in a rwanda and were sent back to _ arrived in a rwanda and were sent back to afghanistan and the court has gone — back to afghanistan and the court has gone through that line by line and decided the court of appeal had it right _ and decided the court of appeal had it right in _ and decided the court of appeal had it right in saying that rwanda in the current circumstances cannot be considered — the current circumstances cannot be considered to be a fair country and therefore — considered to be a fair country and therefore this policy is unlawful and therefore this policy is unlawful end all— therefore this policy is unlawful and all the various limbs of british

law here — and all the various limbs of british law here. we just had a quick chat with lawyers to the claimant outside and they— with lawyers to the claimant outside and they are prettyjubilant. this is en— and they are prettyjubilant. this is an enormous victory for them after— is an enormous victory for them after an— is an enormous victory for them after an enormous long battle. the point _ after an enormous long battle. the point they're trying to make about this is— point they're trying to make about this is ”p— point they're trying to make about this is up to the government, whether— this is up to the government, whether they will strike a new deal with rwanda or a new deal with another— with rwanda or a new deal with another country. they cannot ignore the strength of thisjudgment in the way goes _ the strength of thisjudgment in the way goes beyond this human rights law and _ way goes beyond this human rights law and the wide obligations the government has to protect people. is it a really— government has to protect people. is it a really important judgment. government has to protect people. is it a really importantjudgment. it it a really importantjudgment. [it was a it a really importantjudgment. it was a unanimousjudgment it a really importantjudgment. it was a unanimous judgment as well, five justices. was a unanimous judgment as well, fivejustices. i'm not asking was a unanimous judgment as well, five justices. i'm not asking you what to predict the government will do, we will get a statement later on from the government but legally, what are their options? are there any? what are their options? are there an ? , .., �* what are their options? are there an? ,

any? they can't appeal this. that's it, is the highest _ any? they can't appeal this. that's it, is the highest court. _ it, is the highest court. effectively, the policy in its current— effectively, the policy in its current terms has been taken out the back and _ current terms has been taken out the back and shot, it's as simple as that _ back and shot, it's as simple as that it — back and shot, it's as simple as that it is — back and shot, it's as simple as that. it is dead as a policy. the question— that. it is dead as a policy. the question for the government is how they respond over the long term. they— they respond over the long term. they could — they respond over the long term. they could go back to rwanda and say, they could go back to rwanda and say. can _ they could go back to rwanda and say, can you give us a better deal? but the _ say, can you give us a better deal? but the problem is, when you look at thisjudgment on what it but the problem is, when you look at this judgment on what it says about the problems with rwanda's history, it's very— the problems with rwanda's history, it's very difficult to say at this stage. — it's very difficult to say at this stage, what they can come up with which _ stage, what they can come up with which will— stage, what they can come up with which will trump what they have really _ which will trump what they have really but — which will trump what they have really put to the court because it won't _ really put to the court because it won't necessarily address the underlying structural problems, to use a _ underlying structural problems, to use a un's — underlying structural problems, to use a un's language. the}r underlying structural problems, to use a un's language.— underlying structural problems, to use a un's language. they can look at different — use a un's language. they can look at different countries, _ use a un's language. they can look at different countries, may - use a un's language. they can look at different countries, may be? - use a un's language. they can look| at different countries, may be? they could. at different countries, may be? they could- the)! — at different countries, may be? they could. they would _ at different countries, may be? they could. they would have to take into account _ could. they would have to take into account this — could. they would have to take into account thisjudgment in could. they would have to take into account this judgment in what it says in— account this judgment in what it says in the _ account this judgment in what it says in the detail. this is going to beat _ says in the detail. this is going to beat dozens pages into the judgment

about what the process should be and how you _ about what the process should be and how you should meet those. we are speaking _ how you should meet those. we are speaking in — how you should meet those. we are speaking in november 2023, almost 18 months _ speaking in november 2023, almost 18 months since his policy was developed. less than a year before a general— developed. less than a year before a general election. a general election where _ general election. a general election where the _ general election. a general election where the labour opposition, who are fighting _ where the labour opposition, who are fighting to _ where the labour opposition, who are fighting to win, saying, we don't believe — fighting to win, saying, we don't believe in — fighting to win, saying, we don't believe in this policy at all we would — believe in this policy at all we would scrap it. does the government have time _ would scrap it. does the government have time to come up with another deal before that general election and a _ deal before that general election and a deal that could work? this is and a deal that could work? this is an absolutely, it is literally legal dynamite — an absolutely, it is literally legal dynamite this to home office policy at the _ dynamite this to home office policy at the moment. it is also now a huge political— at the moment. it is also now a huge political problem for the prime minister— political problem for the prime minister and the new home secretary. yes, minister and the new home secretary. yes. hugely— minister and the new home secretary. yes, hugely a significant one, a massive to defeat for the government. there were calls before for the uk to perhaps quit the

european convention on human rights. we had yesterday, the former home secretary's letter to the prime minister talking about she would come up from plan b, had warned rishi sunak about the legal obstacles in this case and even if the government were successful, there would still be obstacles, she said. it leaves the government in a very difficult position, politically in terms of their plans and policy. i think the question for the former home _ i think the question for the former home secretary suella braverman, when _ home secretary suella braverman, when she _ home secretary suella braverman, when she say this is all the fault of the _ when she say this is all the fault of the european court of human rights. — of the european court of human rights. is— of the european court of human rights, is whether or not, has she actually— rights, is whether or not, has she actually really followed the evidence in this case? because what the supreme court said today, of course _ the supreme court said today, of course this— the supreme court said today, of course this is about human rights, they said — course this is about human rights, they said very clearly this is about they said very clearly this is about the european convention of human rights _ the european convention of human rights and — the european convention of human rights and the minimum safeguards are put— rights and the minimum safeguards are put in_ rights and the minimum safeguards are put in place and about the refugee — are put in place and about the refugee convention which is a

separate _ refugee convention which is a separate piece of international law. there _ separate piece of international law. there is— separate piece of international law. there is no— separate piece of international law. there is no doubt about that but they go— there is no doubt about that but they go on— there is no doubt about that but they go on to say very clearly that they go onto say very clearly that refugees— they go on to say very clearly that refugees are further protected. sorry— refugees are further protected. sorry about the sirens. refugees are further— sorry about the sirens. refugees are further protected under a 1993 act of parliament concerning the treatment of asylum seekers, a 2002 act of— treatment of asylum seekers, a 2002 act of parliament, 2004 act. these are individual pieces of law, passed by parliament opposite the supreme court over— by parliament opposite the supreme court over here, so they are not laws _ court over here, so they are not laws created in europe. these are british— laws created in europe. these are british laws, lord reed said those laws are _ british laws, lord reed said those laws are as — british laws, lord reed said those laws are as important as the european _ laws are as important as the european convention of human rights in decision. _ european convention of human rights in decision, you cannot send people to rwanda — in decision, you cannot send people to rwanda. let'sjust say hypothetically speaking, the government reposition where it wishes — government reposition where it wishes to— government reposition where it wishes to leave the european convention of human rights. that position—

convention of human rights. that position were not the answer the position— position were not the answer the position were not the answer the position we have got from this judgment that there is other law that would stop a rwanda style policy — that would stop a rwanda style oli . ,, ., , ., ., , policy. sign that it is a real bind for the government _ policy. sign that it is a real bind for the government at - policy. sign that it is a real bind for the government at this - policy. sign that it is a real bind i for the government at this stage. policy. sign that it is a real bind - for the government at this stage. we have got reaction from the rwandan government. this is a statement from the rwandan government spokesperson. they say. _ the rwandan government spokesperson. they say, this is ultimately a decision— they say, this is ultimately a decision with the uk judicial system but to— decision with the uk judicial system but to do— decision with the uk judicial system but to do take issue with the railing — but to do take issue with the railing that rwanda is not a safe third _ railing that rwanda is not a safe third country for asylum seekers and refugees— third country for asylum seekers and refugees in— third country for asylum seekers and refugees in terms of refoulement. that is— refugees in terms of refoulement. that is sending them back to their home _ that is sending them back to their home countries. rwanda and the uk are they— home countries. rwanda and the uk are they working together to ensure the integration of relocating asylum seekers— the integration of relocating asylum seekers into rwandan society. we are committed _ seekers into rwandan society. we are committed to those international obligations and we have been recognised by the un and other international institutions for our

exemplary treatment of refugees. what _ exemplary treatment of refugees. what is _ exemplary treatment of refugees. what is interesting about that is that they— what is interesting about that is that they have taken effigies and resettle — that they have taken effigies and resettle them but the un's case is that they— resettle them but the un's case is that they have got the system in case _ that they have got the system in case to — that they have got the system in case to deal with something of a size. _ case to deal with something of a size. the — case to deal with something of a size, the numbers the uk has been talking _ size, the numbers the uk has been talking about and that is why they need _ talking about and that is why they need to— talking about and that is why they need to go back to the drawing board — need to go back to the drawing board. . ~' ,, need to go back to the drawing board. ., ,, i. board. thank you. so the government losin: here board. thank you. so the government losing here at — board. thank you. so the government losing here at the _ board. thank you. so the government losing here at the supreme _ board. thank you. so the government losing here at the supreme court, - losing here at the supreme court, its rwanda policy has been ruled unlawful by five justices unanimously and we are expecting a statement at some point from the government reacting to this decision here at the court. prime minister's questions of course at midday today. thank you very much. helena wilkinson there for us at the supreme court. that is really what they have been saying previously. in response to

the position to the court of appeal. they do take issue with the fact that the safety of the country has been, questions have been raised about it. the government spokesperson has been very keen to say that rwanda is one of the safest countries in this part of the world and they say that they have been very keen on the pass to showcase what they are doing to refugees, they have been invited to the amount you see that emergency transit, i have been to that area and they are saying, this is what we are doing for the humanitarian, to support migrants. very recently, they have invited children from private girls school in afghanistan, who are studying now in rwanda with their teachers and this year, they have

also invited students from sudan, medical students, after war broke out in a country. they have relocated to continue their studies in sedan together with their lecturers and so they bring up these examples, they want the government to showcase that they mean well, that this is what the government has done and that is why that statement from the government's spokeswoman, she is very keen to say that this is ultimately the position of the uk judicial system, however even though this wasn't really rwanda on trial here, it is a serious indictment on the government record.— here, it is a serious indictment on the government record. there was a really strong — the government record. there was a really strong criticism _ the government record. there was a really strong criticism of _ the government record. there was a really strong criticism of rwanda - the government record. there was a really strong criticism of rwanda in l really strong criticism of rwanda in thatjudgment. we have got 100% rejection rate of asylum claims from places like syria and afghanistan. also talk about this agreement that rwanda had them the israeli government and how it's ready rwanda asylum seekers there will be moved to a neighbouring country

clandestinely. some really stinging criticism. . clandestinely. some really stinging criticism. , . . , criticism. indeed. this criticism has also been _ criticism. indeed. this criticism has also been coming - criticism. indeed. this criticism has also been coming from - criticism. indeed. this criticism i has also been coming from human rights organisations, including the united nations human rights commissioner, who said that he had raised serious concerns about this asylum deal and the human rights watch as well that says it criticised some of the comments by the president when he talked about refugees who had come underfire in the country. therefore, this is something that is being followed very keenly in the uk, not as much in rwanda. i was there when a huge discussion was going on of this nature but the people there are saying that they were keen to host these refugees and saying that they

have been, many of them have been refugees in the past, including this government spokeswoman who grew up here in kenny and therefore they say, as these people, they are welcoming these asylum seekers and the government has been defending its record on that. let’s the government has been defending its record on that.— its record on that. let's “ust pause for a seeend * its record on that. let's “ust pause for a second hammock _ its record on that. let'sjust pause for a second hammock and - its record on that. let'sjust pause for a second hammock and here. | its record on that. let'sjust pause for a second hammock and here. i| for a second hammock and here. i want to thank the supreme court for itsjudgment. this want to thank the supreme court for its judgment. this victory is a victory for our brave clients who stood up to what is an unlawful and inhumane policy. the day is not a victory for them, it's a victory for the rule of law. it's a reminder that no one is above the law and its timely that governments are told they have to say within the boundaries of the law. we can hope

now that our clients and many others can dream of a safer and better future. thank you.— can dream of a safer and better future. thank you. why does the government _ future. thank you. why does the government go _ future. thank you. why does the government go now? _ future. thank you. why does the government go now? because i future. thank you. why does the i government go now? because they potentially could go back and negotiate the deal with rwanda or another— negotiate the deal with rwanda or another country? the}r negotiate the deal with rwanda or another country?— negotiate the deal with rwanda or another country? they will have to consider carefully _ another country? they will have to consider carefully what _ another country? they will have to consider carefully what the - another country? they will have to i consider carefully what the supreme court has said in this judgment. they were unanimous and very clear about why they were concerned and the policy was unlawful. they have to take into account, notjust the european convention of human rights, the supreme court was clear that this country's conventions when it comes to the government applying or deciding whether or not they can remove asylum seekers to other countries. ., , ,., ~ remove asylum seekers to other countries-— remove asylum seekers to other countries. ., , ., ., , ., countries. having spoken to any of our countries. having spoken to any of your clients? _ countries. having spoken to any of your clients? not _ countries. having spoken to any of your clients? not yet. _ countries. having spoken to any of your clients? not yet. do - countries. having spoken to any of your clients? not yet. do you i countries. having spoken to any of| your clients? not yet. do you think the rwanda — your clients? not yet. do you think the rwanda policy _ your clients? not yet. do you think the rwanda policy is _ your clients? not yet. do you think the rwanda policy is now— your clients? not yet. do you think the rwanda policy is now over i your clients? not yet. do you think the rwanda policy is now over and | the rwanda policy is now over and they have — the rwanda policy is now over and they have to — the rwanda policy is now over and they have to think _ the rwanda policy is now over and they have to think it _ the rwanda policy is now over and they have to think it over? - the rwanda policy is now over and they have to think it over? this i they have to think it over? this -oli they have to think it over? this policy has _ they have to think it over? this policy has been _ they have to think it over? thiii policy has been declared they have to think it over? policy has been declared all unlawful. the supreme court has

struck it down pulls up will have to see what happens next. what struck it down pulls up will have to see what happens next.— see what happens next. what you think of suella _ see what happens next. what you think of suella braverman's i see what happens next. what you think of suella braverman's the l see what happens next. what you | think of suella braverman's the vet the government— think of suella braverman's the vet the government would _ think of suella braverman's the vet the government would have - think of suella braverman's the vet the government would have to i think of suella braverman's the vet the government would have to pull| the government would have to pull out of _ the government would have to pull out of unhcr _ the government would have to pull out of unhcr to— the government would have to pull out of unhcr to get— the government would have to pull out of unhcr to get this? - the government would have to pull out of unhcr to get this? it- the government would have to pull out of unhcr to get this? it is - the government would have to pull out of unhcr to get this?- out of unhcr to get this? it is one of many international— out of unhcr to get this? it is one of many international instruments | of many international instruments and conventions that make it very clear that this country and in fact this country's laws itself are very clear as to how you should respect human rights of asylum seekers. reign what you think of it then? i would say, former attorney general, the lawyer herself should have respect for law and that is what the supreme court has said. what respect for law and that is what the supreme court has said. what swung it for ou? supreme court has said. what swung it for you? the _ supreme court has said. what swung it for you? the unhcr _ supreme court has said. what swung it for you? the unhcr because i supreme court has said. what swung it for you? the unhcr because my . it for you? the unhcr because my evidence was _ it for you? the unhcr because my evidence was absolutely _ it for you? the unhcr because my evidence was absolutely key i it for you? the unhcr because my evidence was absolutely key and i it for you? the unhcr because my. evidence was absolutely key and the evidence was absolutely key and the evidence before the court was very

careful and very clear that there is a real risk, a substantial real risk of ill treatment of these individuals go to rwanda and the evidence and the unhcr were clear throughout and that is what the court of appeal and the supreme court of appeal and the supreme court has accepted.— court of appeal and the supreme court has accepted. what you think the features _ court has accepted. what you think the features of _ court has accepted. what you think the features of asylum _ court has accepted. what you think the features of asylum seekers i court has accepted. what you think| the features of asylum seekers now in this— the features of asylum seekers now in this country? _ the features of asylum seekers now in this country? hot— the features of asylum seekers now in this country?— in this country? not for me to comment _ in this country? not for me to comment on. _ in this country? not for me to comment on. we _ in this country? not for me to comment on. we only - in this country? not for me to i comment on. we only represent our clients to the best of our ability and it gives at least those asylum seekers some hope that this country, the highest court in this country, has confirmed that there is respect of human rights and dignity for all who come here for international protection. who come here for international protection-— who come here for international rotection. , , ., ., protection. giving his reaction on the, the claimants _ protection. giving his reaction on the, the claimants lawyers i protection. giving his reaction on | the, the claimants lawyers there, giving reaction.

i assume that you are happy with this. it would be awful if they sent vulnerable people to a country where they would be safe and they would be sent to places that they fled from. yes i am happy but can i say, of course, legally, the government has taken a real knock on this but even this, the policy is still wrong in principle. it's knocked a hole in the government's policy. the whole policy on asylum seekers and refugees and the government ought to think again. refugees and the government ought to think aaain. , ., , ., think again. some the questions to the la er think again. some the questions to the lawyer outside _ think again. some the questions to the lawyer outside court _ think again. some the questions to the lawyer outside court were i think again. some the questions to the lawyer outside court were justl the lawyer outside court were just saying, there is this concern on whether some members of the conservative party will be pushing for the government to try and get the uk to leave the european convention of human rights. do you think that is a path for the government may look to go down? i

sincerely hope not. i think the european convention on human rights and the work of the european court of human rights are fundamental to human rights. it's something that britain played a major part in establishing many years ago. the european court of human rights say that the link between the british courts and the european court of the best of any country that is a member of the european convention and that if we were not part of the european convention or if we somehow distance ourselves from it, then the notorious abuses of human rights in the world would say, if the brits don't go along with it, why should we? so it have a very damaging effect, notjust on our human rights but on human rights elsewhere. i'll government is not sincere about human rights if so. there's also the 1951 geneva convention, again, has come into play in helping the supreme court to denounce the rwanda policy. the geneva connection, we

are members of that as well and that is fundamental to the right of asylum seekers that the amount of legal thresholds of the government has failed to get over, they will have to think again the whole policy. have to think again the whole oli . ~ . , have to think again the whole oli _ ~ , , ., policy. the prime minister my mat has riven policy. the prime minister my mat has given his _ policy. the prime minister my mat has given his reaction _ policy. the prime minister my mat has given his reaction to _ policy. the prime minister my mat has given his reaction to this i has given his reaction to this judgment, saying this was on the outcome that they wanted but he remains plainly committed to stopping the boats. this is his major policy. he has put so much on this. in terms of people that continue to risk their lives in the channel, the numbers keep increasing. if they don't go along these lines, could he see them trying to get people to a different country that is not rwanda? theoretically, that could be a possible way of interpreting the ring this morning. thejudgment was specifically about the safety of people who are being sent to rwanda and therefore other countries might be acceptable to the supreme court.

however, that is long way ahead. i think the government, about from albania, the government has a fine any other that would take people so the government has a bit of a job to do. in any case, i still repeat, it's wrong in principle to say that we should abdicate our response ability for assisting asylum seekers to another country. i think it is our response ability to deal with asylum seekers and of course, we must stop the boats. of course we must stop the boats. of course we must do everything we can but this is in the way to do it. we will stop the boats by having a better agreement with france and other countries, having tougher action are great with them as to how to catch the traffickers and then we might have some sense. and furthermore, we should also say that where there are people trying to get over to this country, let's look at links to this country. if they have family here, surely they should have some parity to get here by state and legal means. the government have shut down all the safe and legal means getting here, apart from ukraine and

therefore, it means that people have to result of method if they are desperate to join their family. the government should also devise proper, safe and legal rights of asylum seekers to come here. that surely it will be out at a government to do right away. thank ou ve government to do right away. thank you very much _ government to do right away. thank you very much for — government to do right away. thank you very much forjoining _ government to do right away. thank you very much forjoining us - government to do right away. thank you very much forjoining us here i government to do right away. thank you very much forjoining us here on bbc news. that is lord dubs. just to give you a bit more that a statement from the prime minister rishi sunak. here saying they will consider next steps. this is not of the outcome we wanted but we spent the last months planning for all eventualities and remain committed to stopping all the boats. supreme court has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrant to a safe country the processing is lawful. illegal migration destroys lives and cost british taxpayers millions of pounds a year. we are expecting the home secretary to make a statement in the house and this afternoon and there will be a statement from the prime minister at downing street later.

let's return now, as ijust mention, that statement at downing street for the prime minister will be a press conference and i will be at 4:45pm. let's go back to helena wilkinson, outside the supreme court for us. rishi sunak stressing the idea that it hasn't been ruled out that the uk can still try and send people to a safe third country for processing. that's right. the prime minister rishi sunak�*s statement in the last few moments also saying that they will now consider next steps. the prime minister saying, there is not the outcome we wanted but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats. let's get some reaction to thejudgment boats. let's get some reaction to

the judgment that we had in the last 45 minutes or so from a barrister who represented one of the claimants in this case. thanks so much for joining us. first of all, your reaction to the unanimous judgment here today. this reaction to the unanimous 'udgment here toda . . . reaction to the unanimous 'udgment heretoda. , ,, . ., here today. this is such an important _ here today. this is such an importantjudgment, i here today. this is such an importantjudgment, it i here today. this is such an importantjudgment, it is. here today. this is such an | importantjudgment, it is a here today. this is such an - importantjudgment, it is a defence of all— importantjudgment, it is a defence of all the _ importantjudgment, it is a defence of all the uk's international treaty application from the un convention on refugees, the un convention against — on refugees, the un convention against torture and other international obligations, including but not _ international obligations, including but not limited to the unhcr. it is the principles we have signed up to and they— the principles we have signed up to and they found they were truly important and all the needs have been _ important and all the needs have been respected and they were not in this policy. _ been respected and they were not in this policy, which was found to be unlawful— this policy, which was found to be unlawful in— this policy, which was found to be unlawful in the context of rwanda. he represented one of the claimants in this case. what can you tell us about them festival and how they have reaction to the news today? he has an asylum seeker from iran. if

his claim _ has an asylum seeker from iran. if his claim is — has an asylum seeker from iran. if his claim is processed here, i think you would — his claim is processed here, i think you would get refugee status. he is delighted — you would get refugee status. he is delighted. my solicitor has spoken to him _ delighted. my solicitor has spoken to him and his son is here seeking asylum _ to him and his son is here seeking asylum and — to him and his son is here seeking asylum and they want to be together in that— asylum and they want to be together in that claim and if they are successful, unlike in rwanda, they may be _ successful, unlike in rwanda, they may be able to bring the family here toioin_ may be able to bring the family here tojoin them. the may be able to bring the family here to join them-— to join them. the government's rwanda policy. _ to join them. the government's rwanda policy, announced i to join them. the government's| rwanda policy, announced more to join them. the government's i rwanda policy, announced more than 18 months ago. what has that legal process been like for your client? it has been torturous in the mental sense _ it has been torturous in the mental sense he — it has been torturous in the mental sense he is— it has been torturous in the mental sense. he is already a victim of torture. — sense. he is already a victim of torture. he _ sense. he is already a victim of torture, he experienced that on his way to— torture, he experienced that on his way to the — torture, he experienced that on his way to the uk. he was on the plane on the _ way to the uk. he was on the plane on the night — way to the uk. he was on the plane on the night of the 14th ofjune 2022~ — on the night of the 14th ofjune 2022~ he — on the night of the 14th ofjune 2022. he was 30 minutes from removal and if— 2022. he was 30 minutes from removal and if the _ 2022. he was 30 minutes from removal and if the government had had their way, and if the government had had their way. he _ and if the government had had their way. he had — and if the government had had their way, he had would have been removed to rwanda _ way, he had would have been removed to rwanda. we came as close as it could _ to rwanda. we came as close as it could have — to rwanda. we came as close as it could have been, if not for the court —

could have been, if not for the courtjudgments, to remove meant. he was one _ courtjudgments, to remove meant. he was one of— courtjudgments, to remove meant. he was one of the last six left on the plane _ was one of the last six left on the lane. . .. was one of the last six left on the lane. . ~' ,, was one of the last six left on the lane. . ~' , was one of the last six left on the lane, ., ~' , . plane. thank you very much indeed for talkin: plane. thank you very much indeed for talking to _ plane. thank you very much indeed for talking to us _ plane. thank you very much indeed for talking to us about _ plane. thank you very much indeed for talking to us about your - for talking to us about your reaction. one of the barristers representing one of the claimants in this case. that's dramatic ruling of judgment that came unanimous from five justices judgment that came unanimous from fivejustices here at judgment that came unanimous from five justices here at the supreme court, ruling that the government's rwanda plan is unlawful.— rwanda plan is unlawful. thank you ve much rwanda plan is unlawful. thank you very much for— rwanda plan is unlawful. thank you very much for now. _ rwanda plan is unlawful. thank you very much for now. helena - rwanda plan is unlawful. thank you. very much for now. helena wilkinson there for us at the supreme court in london. we do have a live page on our website, following all of the developers here with analysis and all the latest update on trading. we have had that statement from the prime minister rishi sunak as well in the last few minutes, saying that the government is going to consider their next steps and saying that crucially, the supreme court, like the court of appeal and the high court before it has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. so we will hear more from the prior minutes

later. live from london, this is bbc news. the uk supreme court has just ruled that the government's flagship plan to send asylum seekers to rwanda is unlawful. the prime minister says the ruling isn't in and out come the government wanted but we commits to stopping the boats. rishi sunak will hold a press conference later. and i'm mark lowen in southern israel. the israeli military 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 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.