Monday 13 June 2022 08:22 PM Channel migrants land in Kent bringing total to 10,131 this year, as lawyers ... trends now

More than 100 Channel migrants have landed in Kent over the weekend, bringing to total number of people who have made the crossing to more than 10,000 so far this year, as lawyers failed in their battle to stop the first deportation flight from taking off tomorrow. 

Government ministers were keeping a close eye on the High Court today as it heard two appeals aimed at halting its flagship policy of deporting migrants to Rwanda, all while desperate migrants risk their lives making the perilous 21-mile journey from France.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) says that 111 people were escorted to Dover on Sunday, June 12, by a Border Force vessel after they were found crossing the Channel at around 9am. 

The arrivals on Sunday were first to make the crossing in five days, and included a number of women and small children. This was followed by another 35 migrants who made the crossing today, a group which was made up of mostly men.  

It brings the total number of new arrivals to 567 in June alone, with the total for the year so far reaching 10,131.

The controversial Rwanda policy, which has been criticised by human rights groups and opposition parties, is set to get underway on Tuesday with a flight that will take 11 asylum seekers to the east African country. 

There were doubts it might get off the ground, as challenges by the civil servants union and refugee charity Asylum Aid, which were heard at the High Court today. They were appealing a decision made by a judge last Friday to allow flights to go ahead while a full legal challenge to the policy is mounted. 

However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the efforts of campaigners, paving the way for the flight to go ahead and barring them from making any further appeals. Judge Rabinder Singh said the Court of Appeal could not interfere with the High Court judge's 'clear and detailed' judgement.

The Government insists the policy is needed to deter people smugglers and migrants from attempting to make the dangerous crossing, many of whom do it on rafts held together with tape.

It was reported earlier this week that Prince Charles had described the policy as 'appalling', while Prime Minister Boris Johnson hit out at 'very active lawyers' who were trying to block the Government.  

The latest arrivals, which included a number of women and small children, were directed along the gangway by soldiers dressed in camouflage fatigues and high-vis vests.

One woman held a young boy's hand while others clutched their belongings in rucksacks as they were led away to be processed by UK officials.

It was revealed last week that the number of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats this year is more than double the amount during the same period last year.

The total number of people to make the treacherous journey across the 21-mile Dover Strait currently stands at 10,131 in 318 boats.

According to official government figures, 28,526 made the crossing in 2021 - compared to 8,410 who arrived in 2020.

Minister for Justice and Tackling Illegal Migration, Tom Pursglove MP, has said: 'The rise in dangerous Channel crossings is unacceptable.

'Not only are they an overt abuse of our immigration laws but they also impact on the UK taxpayer, risk lives and our ability to help refugees come to the UK via safe and legal routes. Rightly, the British public has had enough.

'Through our Nationality and Borders Bill, we're cracking down on people smugglers and fixing the broken system by making it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK illegally and introducing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for those who facilitate illegal entry into our country.' 

The rising numbers have sparked fears that the Government's flagship Rwanda Scheme, which was supposed to deter people from crossing the Channel, is not working. 

Former Brexit Party MEP Ben Habib told Talk TV last week: 'If the aim of the Rwanda plan was to deter people coming across the Channel, it's not actually working is it? Because since they announced it we've had record numbers coming across again. We've got to stop this movement of people, illegally, across the Channel.'

And it comes as legal challenges could ensure the scheme doesn't get off the ground at all. 

Of the 130 migrants who were meant to be on the first flight, only 11 remain scheduled to depart after lawyers submitted a series of individual challenges, with more likely to be lodged in the next 24 hours. 

The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), which represents more than 80 per cent of Border Force staff, and charities Care4Calais and Detention Action, all challenged a decision by the Court of Appeal last Friday that is set to allow the first flight to Rwanda to go ahead tomorrow.

A second case was also due to be heard in the High Court after Asylum Aid, a refugee charity, applied for an urgent interim injunction to stop the Government flying migrants to Rwanda.

Lawyers for the three groups and one person due to be removed asked for an interim block on removing the now-11 people due on Tuesday's flight until the full hearing of whether the policy is lawful next month.

Raza Husain QC told the court: 'The justice of the situation indicates that a general order should be made.'

The barrister said the policy featured 'a serious interference with basic dignity' and that the High Court judge had wrongly assessed the strength of their claim.

He said in written submissions: 'The policy presently involves executive detention, forcible removal from the jurisdiction, transportation to a country from which they have not sought protection and to which they do not wish to go, in circumstances where the individuals concerned are exercising a legal right; and their removal is intended to deter others.

'This amounts, on any view, to a serious interference with basic dignity... where those individuals have already suffered significant trauma and have mental health issues.'

Mr Husain argued that the High Court judge who refused to block the flight on Friday, Mr Justice Swift, had wrongly decided the 'balance of convenience'.

He said in written submissions: 'If interim relief is refused and the claim succeeds, each claimant will be entitled to a 'bring back' order.

'If it is possible to bring the individuals back, which it may not be, this will have very significant administrative cost.

'Every individual who has been forcibly removed is also likely to have significant claims for damages... This potential cost to the taxpayer, in itself outweighs any inconvenience of a six-week delay pending removal pending trial.'

The Home Office has defended the policy.

Rory Dunlop QC, for the department, said: 'The flight tomorrow is important.

'This is a policy which is intended to deter dangerous and unnecessary journeys, journeys from safe third countries by people who do not need to make that journey to be safe, they can claim in France or wherever it is.

'This is a policy that if it works, could save lives as well as disrupting the model of traffickers.

'Even if we are just talking about cancelling a flight tomorrow, there is prejudice to the public interest, to the enactment of decisions that may have that deterrent effect.'

The High Court heard the UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, has multiple concerns about the system in Rwanda, including discriminatory access to asylum, a lack of legal representation and other 'deep-rooted structural problems'. 

Today, Mr Dunlop said: 'The Secretary of State has listened and seriously considered the concerns raised by the UNHCR and has deliberately negotiated arrangements to provide assurances in relation to those concerns.'

Lord Justice Singh, chairing a panel

read more from dailymail.....