Priti Patel’s proposal to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda has been challenged in court for the first time, after a charity directed lawyers to demand the disclosure of papers, citing concerns that the strategy violates international law.

The charity Freedom from Torture “has severe concerns about the lawfulness of the policy,” the solicitors Leigh Day said in a pre-action letter to the Home Office, which is anticipated to lead to a judicial review claim.

It has asked for “information about the policy,” such as policy documents, risk assessments, and the memorandum of agreement signed by the UK and Rwandan governments.

The legal move comes after the government’s contentious Nationality and Borders Bill cleared the Lords on Wednesday night, paving the way for it to become law. A last-ditch attempt to guarantee that elements in the law met with the UK’s international commitments toward refugees was rejected by the upper house by a vote of 212 to 157. As the results were presented, there were yells of “shame” from some of their colleagues.

Those coming by small boat over the Channel would be flown to Rwanda with a one-way ticket, according to the Rwanda pact, which was signed by Patel and lauded by Boris Johnson as a method to save hundreds of individuals from human trafficking.

Rwanda has received an initial £120 million from the UK as part of a “economic reform and integration fund,” but the UK will also cover operating costs. The Home Office, on the other hand, has not provided any information.

The home secretary issued an unprecedented ministerial directive, overruling civil employees’ reservations about the scheme’s value for money.

Separately, the charities Detention Action and Care4Calais, as well as the PCS union, whose members include Home Office and Border Force personnel, have filed another judicial challenge.

A pre-action letter was issued on Monday, contesting Patel’s failure to divulge the criteria that determine which asylum seekers would be deported to east Africa and which will remain in the UK, according to the statement.

They argue that the repatriation to Rwanda would be illegal since the programme penalises asylum applicants for entering the country illegally, which is in clear violation of the Refugee Convention.

“From the curiously limited material revealed so far, it is already evident the proposal bears several hazards, and innocent people will be unjustly and brutally traumatised to win political points,” said Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais.

Patel has been heavily chastised by the courts for neglecting to provide important policy papers, including those pertaining to the seizing of phones from freshly arrived migrants and disputed plans to assign Border Force to “push back” boats bringing refugees across the English Channel.

Also Read

EU refuses gas ‘blackmail’

After the Kremlin shut off gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland, the...