Friday 10 June 2022 10:01 PM Prince Charles brands Home Office Rwanda deportation scheme 'appalling' trends now Prince Charles has branded the Home Office's Rwanda deportation scheme 'appalling' - but has denied trying to influence government policy. The Prince of Wales is reportedly angry at Priti Patel's regime to give migrants a one-way ticket to the east African nation in a desperate bid to curb Channel crossings - as he and Camilla are set to represent the Queen for a summit of African leaders later this month. It comes campaigners and lawyers from Cherie Blair's old chambers lost a High Court bid today to block the Government's plan to send migrants to Rwanda, paving the way for the first flight to go ahead on Tuesday. Demonstrators had asked judges to block their upcoming deportation flight, however Judge Mr Justice Swift ruled against the claim and said: 'I do not consider that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the generic relief.' Charles, 73, who has previously been accused of 'consorting' with the government to push his own agenda on climate change, was allegedly 'more than disappointed at the policy' and feared it could overshadow his visit to Rwanda on behalf of Her Majesty on June 23, a source told The Times. The heir to the throne was said to be frustrated by policy and privately opposed it several times. Prince Charles has branded the Home Office 's Rwanda deportation scheme 'appalling' - but has denied trying to influence government policy Pictured: A group of migrants are brought in to Dover, Kent on June 7 The Prince of Wales is reportedly angry at Priti Patel 's regime to give migrants a one-way ticket to the east African nation in a desperate bid to curb Channel crossings - as he and Camilla are set to represent the Queen for a summit of African leaders later this month The source added: 'He said he thinks the government’s whole approach is appalling. It was clear he was not impressed with the government’s direction of travel.' A Clarence House spokeperson told the newspaper: 'We would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with the Prince of Wales, except to restate that he remains politically neutral. Matters of policy are decisions for government.' It comes as a judge today ruled against a claim by campaigners and lawyers to block migrants heading to Rwanda's upcoming deportation flight. Mrs Patel told MailOnline: 'I welcome the court's decision in our favour and will now continue to deliver on progressing our world-leading Migration Partnership. 'People will continue to try and prevent their relocation through legal challenges and last-minute claims but we will not be deterred in breaking the deadly people smuggling trade and ultimately save lives. 'Rwanda is a safe country and has previously been recognised for providing a safe haven for refugees – we will continue preparations for the first flight to Rwanda, alongside the range of other measures intended to reduce small boat crossings.' Lawyers from Cherie Blair's old chambers had branded the Rwanda deportation scheme 'unsafe and irrational' - as the Home Office urged a judge to refuse an injunction seeking to ground flights. The Democratic Republic of Congo's army (FARDC) fired two rockets at Rwanda this morning, the country's military said. The Rwanda Defence Force said the FARDC fired two 12mm rockets today, leaving locals 'terrified'. There were no casualties but it comes after similar shelling on March 19 and May 23 that injured people and destroyed homes. Protestors stand outside The Royal Court of Justice in London today ahead of a major legal challenge to Priti Patel's Rwanda policy Their legal team being led by top QCs Raza Husain and Chris Buttler - both from Matrix - a chamber of liberal barristers' co-founded by Cherie Blair. She left in 2014 Up to 130 migrants have been notified they could be removed, with the first 31 people due to leave on the first flight on Tuesday. Lawyers for almost 100 migrants have submitted legal challenges asking to stay in the UK with the remaining anticipated to follow suit this week. The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) is leading the case alongside charities Care 4 Calais and Detention Action. The groups say the policy is unlawful and LGBT migrants could face discrimination. Their legal team being led by top QCs Raza Husain and Chris Buttler - both from Matrix - a chamber of liberal barristers' co-founded by Cherie Booth, the wife of former Labour PM Tony Blair. She left in 2014. Who is leading the challenge against Priti Patel's Rwanda policy? Public and Commercial Services union (PCS): This represents more than 80 per cent of Border Force staff. It has suggested the threat of deportation to Rwanda will make migrants crossing the Channel more likely to evade Border Force officers and violently resist arrest. Care 4 Calais: One of the most high-profile groups involved in delivering emergency aid to refugees in the French port and campaigning against the government's migration policy. Detention Action: Describes itself as a human rights organisation working on the frontline of immigration detention in the UK, providing direct support to those in detention and campaigning for reform. Matrix Chambers: A chamber of liberal barristers' co-founded by Cherie Booth, the wife of former Labour PM Tony Blair. She left in 2014. QCs Raza Husain and Chris Buttler are overseeing the Rwanda case. Advertisement Mr Husain told the High Court: 'The system is not safe. It is not that it is not safe after July, it is just not safe. 'You may be arbitrarily denied access to it. If you do get into it, there are concerns about the impartiality of the decision-making.' He continued: 'The evidence is that if you are not from a neighbouring country, then there are high levels of rejection.' Mr Husain said this included asylum seekers from Syria, who are largely accepted by the UK system. 'The procedure is simply unsafe,' he added. Calling for an evidence-based assessment for the policy, 'not an aspirational basis, or hopes', Mr Husain said: 'The Secretary of State's conclusion as to the safety of Rwanda was irrational. We have a very strong case on that,' later adding: 'We say there is no answer whatsoever to this case on irrationality on the assessment that Rwanda's procedures are safe.' The barrister later said that the agreement between the two countries, known as a Memorandum of Understanding, was 'unenforceable'. 'Nothing monitors it, there's no evidence of structural change. The risks are just too high,' he added. Mr Husain also said a Home Office document used by the department in the claim was 'replete with the suggestion that the UNHCR (the UN refugee agency) has given this plan a green light'. 'Regrettably, the material in this application demonstrates that to be misleading,' he added. The UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, had a number of concerns about the asylum process in Rwanda, including discriminatory access to asylum - including for LGBT people - a lack of legal representation and interpreters, and difficulties in appealing, the court heard. Mr Husain said: 'These are concerns that have been communicated to the UK authorities and yet the secretary of state's position ... is that the UNHCR has given this plan a green light. 'That is a false claim.' Laura Dubinsky QC for UNHCR, which is intervening in the claim, said there had been 'inaccuracies' in the way the agency's views had been described by the Home Office. She told the court that the agency is concerned about the risk of 'serious, irreparable harm' caused to refugees sent to Rwanda, adding the body 'in no way endorses the UK-Rwandan arrangement'. 'UNHCR is not involved in the UK-Rwanda arrangement, despite assertions to the contrary made by the Secretary of State,' she later said. Ms Dubinsky said the agency had 'serious concerns about Rwandan capacity', adding: 'UNHCR itself is not in a position to rectify those deficiencies. 'The problems described are deep-rooted structural problems, they are not capable of speedy resolution,' the barrister continued. She also told the High Court in London that UNHCR has had 'a number of meetings' with the Home Office and has said they believe the policy is unlawful. Journey's end? Migrants are brought into Dover by Border Guard staff on Tuesday In written submissions, Home Office lawyers urged the court to reject the application, arguing that it 'fails at the first stage', adding: 'The claimants have not identified a serious issue to be tried, still less the strong case they allege for the grant of relief at trial.' In the court documents, Rory Dunlop QC and Mathew Gullick QC, for the department, said: 'The application for interim relief should be dismissed. In the alternative, any order for interim relief should be limited.' They said there was a 'strong public interest in permitting these removals to proceed as scheduled' and a 'clear public interest in deterring the making of dangerous journeys and the activities of criminal smugglers'. The papers also disclose the Home Office has already cancelled removal directions for three people who had asked the High Court to prevent their deportation to Rwanda. In the hearing, it emerged two more people will also have them cancelled. The claim and application runs to 'many hundreds of pages', the Home Office lawyers said, as they suggested there had been delays in serving the papers, arguing: 'Given the volume of material that has now been served, this delay has prejudiced the defendants' ability to respond to the interim relief application.' They also cited 'procedural issues' over the way in which the claim has been made. Judge Mr Justice Swift said the final hearing in the case will be heard in July. The Home Office has said it expected legal challenges but is 'determined to deliver this new partnership' and insisted the policy 'fully complies with international and national law' while Downing Street said Boris Johnson remains confident the policy is legal. The High Court is due to hear a further challenge to the policy on Monday, brought by refugee charity Asylum Aid and supported by fellow campaign group Freedom From Torture. MailOnline has contacted Clarence House for comment. All rights reserved for this news site (dailymail) and under his responsibility