A SECOND legal challenge against the Home Office’s plans to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be heard in the High Court this week. 

The judicial review, brought by charity Asylum Aid, comes a month after a separate legal action against the policy was heard, which focused on challenging the Home Office’s assessment of Rwanda as a safe third country. 

The latest action, starting on Thursday, centres instead on the legality of the procedure used by the Home Office to identify and assess people for removal to the east African country.

Lawyers for Asylum Aid will argue that the current “short-cut” process “tramples over asylum-seekers’ rights and the rule of law.” 

Asylum-seekers targeted for removal to Rwanda are given just seven days to challenge the Home Office’s decision. The charity claims this is not enough time for people to find legal advice and make their case.

The court is expected to hear that the accelerated assessment process has been deliberately set up so most people fail to challenge their removal, even if they have a legitimate claims under human rights and modern-day slavery laws. 

Speaking ahead of the two-day hearing, Asylum Aid director Alison Pickup said: “The Rwanda plans pose a real risk that people may be removed without having had their rightful access to effective legal advice and the courts. 

“The scheme gives asylum-seekers, newly arrived and in detention, almost no time to understand what is being proposed, get access to legal advice and give their reasons for wanting to remain in the UK, which often means disclosing traumatic experiences. 

“And if they don’t, they face the very real prospect of being sent thousands of miles away to an uncertain future in a country which cannot be regarded as safe for them. 

“People must be allowed to go through a fair process, get a fair hearing and a fair outcome.” 

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has vowed to push ahead with her predecessor Priti Patel’s policy despite warnings from the United Nations refugee agency that the plans would breach international law. 

At a previous hearing, court documents revealed that ministers had deliberately ignored evidence of human rights violations in Rwanda, and brushed aside repeated concerns by government officials about the country’s suitability for asylum-seekers.