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.

you are watching bbc news. within the past hour, the uk supreme court has ruled that the government's flagship plan to send asylum seekers to rwanda, is unlawful. the judges unanimously rejected the government's appeal over its policy of removing asylum seekers to the east african country if they arrive in britain illegally. a response from prime minister rishi sunak is expected in the house of commons this lunchtime. campaigners called the verdict a "victory for humanity". he will hold a news conference this afternoon. the president of the supreme court — lord reed — said there would have been a risk of genuine asylum seekers being returned by rwanda to their home country. we accept the home secretary's submission 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 the relevant time, we have concluded that there were. the changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement 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 unlawful for the reasons that i've 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 also dismissed. live now to our correspondent at the supreme court, helena wilkinson. yes, thatjudgment yes, that judgment that yes, thatjudgment that came in the last hour or so, five justices who had been considering the case over a three—day hearing last month have today handed down theirjudgment. it was a unanimousjudgment today handed down theirjudgment. it was a unanimous judgment and the supreme court, which is the uk's highest court has ruled against the uk government's rwanda plan, that plan which was announced in april of last year, so more than 18 months ago. the plan to send some asylum seekers to rwanda for their asylum cases to be processed there. the judgment has been handed down saying that the government plans are unlawful. let's have a chat to sophie lucas who is from the

solicitors firm duncan lewis. sophie, yourfirm represented six claimants in this case. first of all, what can you tell us about those claimants?— all, what can you tell us about those claimants? our clients, some of them are — those claimants? our clients, some of them are survivors _ those claimants? our clients, some of them are survivors of _ those claimants? our clients, some of them are survivors of torture, - of them are survivors of torture, trafficking. they are incredibly vulnerable, some of them are from countries such as syria, iran. these are clients who came to the uk to seek refuge and had been living in fearfor over seek refuge and had been living in fear for over a seek refuge and had been living in fearfor over a year now, seek refuge and had been living in fear for over a year now, not knowing what their future holds and whether the government will try to remove them to rwanda. you whether the government will try to remove them to rwanda. you listen to the judgment — remove them to rwanda. you listen to the judgment. first _ remove them to rwanda. you listen to the judgment. first of— remove them to rwanda. you listen to the judgment. first of all— remove them to rwanda. you listen to the judgment. first of all your - the judgment. first of all your reaction to it. {131 the judgment. first of all your reaction to it.— the judgment. first of all your reaction to it. _, , _, reaction to it. of course we welcome the decision — reaction to it. of course we welcome the decision to _ reaction to it. of course we welcome the decision to uphold _ reaction to it. of course we welcome the decision to uphold the _ the decision to uphold the conclusions of the court of appeal that rwanda is not a safer country. there are fundamental defects in the asylum system such that individuals move from the uk to rwanda are at real risk of ill treatment in breach

of theirfundamental real risk of ill treatment in breach of their fundamental human rights. we don't know what the government is going to do next. it has been defeated a significant defeat for the government, but what would be your thoughts if they looked to other countries for example? we know the principle of sending asylum seekers, that hasn't been pushed aside, it'sjust the seekers, that hasn't been pushed aside, it's just the fact that rwanda, what they ruled here, there was a substantial risk that those asylum seekers sent to rwanda, a risk they might be sent back to the country they had been fleeing from. your thoughts about that. yes. country they had been fleeing from. your thoughts about that.— your thoughts about that. yes, the su - reme your thoughts about that. yes, the suweme court _ your thoughts about that. yes, the supreme court found _ your thoughts about that. yes, the supreme court found there - your thoughts about that. yes, the supreme court found there are - supreme court found there are serious deficiencies in the rwandan asylum system that asylum seekers removed from the uk under this scheme would be at risk of ill—treatment. these are concerns voiced by government officials themselves from the inception of

this policy. we urge the government to review thejudgment this policy. we urge the government to review the judgment as i'm sure they will do and consider how to take a more sensible approach in the future, respecting the rule of law, the human rights as part of parliament in their future proposals. parliament in their future mammals-— parliament in their future --roosals. ., . ~' . proposals. you talked about it in our first proposals. you talked about it in your first answer _ proposals. you talked about it in your first answer but _ proposals. you talked about it in your first answer but just - proposals. you talked about it in your first answer butjust some i proposals. you talked about it in i your first answer butjust some up for us the significance of today, we are standing outside the uk's highest court, there can't be any further appeals at all, the significant of the judgment in your view today. this significant of the 'udgment in your view toda . , ,, , ., view today. this supreme court 'ud . ment view today. this supreme court judgment is _ view today. this supreme court judgment is hugely _ view today. this supreme court judgment is hugely significant. | judgment is hugely significant. first and foremost for our clients, some of whom are victims of torture and trafficking, but it is an important day for the rule of law in this country. it demonstrates the government cannot act with impunity. nobody is above the law and today the supreme court found that in line with our international and domestic obligations, this policy is not

lawful. , u, , obligations, this policy is not lawful. ., , lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis, lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis. thank— lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis, thank you _ lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis, thank you very _ lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis, thank you very much - lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan. lewis, thank you very much indeed. sophie representing six of the claimants in this case and we had a statement from the prime minister, rishi sunak, in reaction to the judgment, a fairly lengthy statement saying they had seen the judgment and will now consider next steps. this was not the outcome we wanted but we had spent the last few months, the prime minister says, planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed, he says, to stopping the boats. thank you, helen wilkinson. let's bring in doctor alice donald from middlesex university. what do you make of this ruling? this middlesex university. what do you make of this ruling?— make of this ruling? as you have been hearing _ make of this ruling? as you have been hearing it _ make of this ruling? as you have been hearing it was _ make of this ruling? as you have been hearing it was a _ make of this ruling? as you have | been hearing it was a unanimous, unequivocal, crushing defeat for the rwanda policy. a number of striking

elements was the emphasis that the supreme courtjudges, all five of them, place on the evidence presented by the un refugee agency as to the deficiencies in the rwandan system, rwanda is very poor, internal human rights record, its failure to comply with human rights safeguards and the fact that refugees from rwanda had been subject to this reform or being sent back to the country where they faced persecution. back to the country where they faced persecution-— persecution. that was the key bit that even under— persecution. that was the key bit that even under the _ persecution. that was the key bit that even under the scrutiny - persecution. that was the key bit that even under the scrutiny that| that even under the scrutiny that they will have been obviously since that agreement between the uk government and rwanda was made, that these things were happening, that he listed since that period. yes. listed since that period. yes, exactly and _ listed since that period. yes, exactly and very _ listed since that period. yes, exactly and very striking - listed since that period. yes, exactly and very striking also listed since that period. ye: exactly and very striking also was the fact that there was almost 100%

rejection rate in rwanda for people seeking asylum from countries like yemen, syria, iran, afghanistan, these are nationalities where when asylum claims are processed in the uk, we almost have a high acceptance rate. that was another point mentioned in the judgment as causing this severe doubt about rwanda's ability to process asylum applications fairly and in compliance with refugee law and human rights law.— human rights law. where do you exect human rights law. where do you exnect this _ human rights law. where do you exnect this to — human rights law. where do you expect this to go _ human rights law. where do you expect this to go now? - human rights law. where do you expect this to go now? we - human rights law. where do you expect this to go now? we were| expect this to go now? we were hearing that statement from rishi sunak saying how illegal migration costs millions of pounds a year and saying we need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so. yes. do whatever it takes to do so. yes, one option — do whatever it takes to do so. yes, one option that _ do whatever it takes to do so. yes, one option that has _ do whatever it takes to do so. yes, one option that has been _ do whatever it takes to do so. yes one option that has been muted do whatever it takes to do so. 123 one option that has been muted is full to the boat on a firmer

treating with more safeguards. i don't expect that to happen before a general election. another possibility is for other countries to be found with which similar agreements could be reached. i gather there are two countries in the frame but the government hasn't divulged which they are or how close they might be. another possibility and this has been said by suella braverman in this deal she struck with rishi sunak, was to seek to legislate, to override human rights obligations but there is a big problem with that which is whatever legislation you passed domestically, doesn't have the effect of removing international human rights obligations and the supreme court judgment make clear it is notjust the european convention on human rights which is at issue here but also the uk's obligations under the refugee convention and other human rights treaties such as the convention against torture. thank

ou ve convention against torture. thank you very much — convention against torture. thank you very much for _ convention against torture. thank you very much for talking - convention against torture. thank you very much for talking to - convention against torture. thank you very much for talking to us. i you very much for talking to us. associate professor of human rights law at middlesex university. live now to geoffrey robertson kc. he is founding head of doughty street chambers and a number of his colleagues were involved in this supreme court case. i'm assuming you are very happy with today. i i'm assuming you are very happy with toda . ~ �* , ., ., today. i think it's a great vindication _ today. i think it's a great vindication of _ today. i think it's a great vindication of the - today. i think it's a great vindication of the rule i today. i think it's a great vindication of the rule of| today. i think it's a great - vindication of the rule of law and indeed the role of british law. even though we may express it in french, refoulement is a french word, it sounds like foul because it is found. it is a red line not only in the european convention. the supreme court went out of its way to explain

that this is an international law obligation and indeed a british law obligation. it mentioned three acts of parliament in 2002, 2004, it's part of british law, so all those mps who were going to cry about let's appeal the european convention are talking nonsense because the rule against sending people back to where they had been persecuted is absolutely british as well as international law. the government is going to pay the costs, too, of this attempt to defend a policy that it should have realised would be struck down. 0ne should have realised would be struck down. one is amazed at the stupid ignorance of the government from the foreign office about what rwanda is “p foreign office about what rwanda is

up to. all the matters cited by the supreme court, i have counted about 30 or 40 barristers, they will have to pay all the costs. i don't know... to pay all the costs. i don't know- - -_ to pay all the costs. i don't know... , . ., ., , know... they have already paid rwanda 140 — know... they have already paid rwanda 140 million. _ know... they have already paid rwanda 140 million. from - know... they have already paid | rwanda 140 million. from rishi sunak�*s comment, he said, crucially the supreme court has confirmed that the supreme court has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful, so it would seem maybe that is something they are considering. just stay with us for a moment because ijust need to say goodbye to certain viewers. if you're staying with me, we will carry on this conversation but there is plenty more on our website where you can see all the latest updates and analysis and statements from the

relevant parties. you are watching bbc news. as we have been hearing, brittain's supreme court has ruled the government's flagship plan to send migrants to rwanda to have their cases processed is unlawful. delivering the verdict the judge said genuine refugees could be at risk of being sent back to countries from which they had fled. the british government had hoped the plan would deter thousands of migrants travelling to the uk on small boats each year. for life analysis, let's go to our political correspondent, alex forsyth in westminster. how much of a blow is this for the government? it’s westminster. how much of a blow is this for the government?— this for the government? it's huge, it's really significant _ this for the government? it's huge, it's really significant and _ this for the government? it's huge, it's really significant and the - it's really significant and the reason for that is because the government put this plan to send asylum seekers to rwanda at the very heart of its policy on illegal immigration. they have been talking about it for a long time, but this

has been absolutely central to the government's aim of what they say stopping those small boats crossing the channel. now this decision by the channel. now this decision by the supreme court seems to have blown that the author of the water because the supreme court has made clear, unanimously that this plan is unlawful. there are big questions about what the government does now. we are expecting to hear from the prime minister, rishi sunak. he will be addressing questions from mps at prime minister's questions and then we will get a statement from the new home secretary james cleverly and there will be a press conference from rishi sunak later on this afternoon as well. be under no doubt this is a hugely significant blow to the government's plan and big questions about where they go from here. :, , , questions about where they go from here. . , , ., , ., here. there has been a statement from the prime _ here. there has been a statement from the prime minister _ here. there has been a statement from the prime minister where . here. there has been a statement from the prime minister where he j here. there has been a statement l from the prime minister where he is saying, we have seen today's judgment and will consider next steps. he said, this was not the outcome we wanted. people have been

talking about possible other options