AN ATTEMPT to overturn a ruling that the government’s plan to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda is unlawful was launched in the Supreme Court today.

The Home Office is asking Britain’s highest court to overrule the Court of Appeal’s judgement against the highly contentious plan.

Legal action opposing the policy was brought by asylum-seekers and human rights organisations.

In a written submission to the court today, Raza Husain KC, representing several asylum-seekers, described Rwanda at a previous hearing as “a highly autocratic repressive state” which “imprisons, tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents.”

“The policy is an inherently difficult one to achieve lawfully,” he said.

“On the one hand, for the deterrent purpose of removal to a third country to be successful, the third country must be a sufficiently unattractive location to an asylum-seeker travelling to the UK.

“On the other hand, the third country must not be unattractive because it falls short of Article 3 [the right to be free from torture] and Refugee Convention standards.”

Sir James Eadie KC, acting for the Home Office, told the court that the policy to remove people to “a country less attractive than Britain, but nevertheless safe,” is lawful.

Under the Rwanda deportation plan, hatched by Home Secretary Suella Braverman, Britain will pay the Rwandan government £105,000 for each refugee deported.

This is on top of £120 million given to the Rwandan government as “development funding.”

Human rights groups have vehemently opposed the plan.

In 2018, Rwandan police shot and killed 12 refugees who were protesting against a reduction in their food rations.

Campaign group Asylum Aid said: “The government’s planned, forced removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda tramples over their rights and the rule of law.”

Freedom from Torture chief executive Sonya Sceats said: “Every day in our therapy rooms we see the terror that this scheme inflicts on survivors of torture who have come to the UK seeking sanctuary.”

She said the “cash for humans” deal was immoral and accused Ms Braverman of “increasingly hysterical anti-refugee rhetoric designed to distract us from the cost-of-living crisis and crumbling public services.”

“It won’t work,” Ms Sceats said.

Doctors Without Borders executive director Natalie Roberts called the plan “cruel, dangerous and futile.”

The Supreme Court hearing began today and is expected to last for three days.