Priti Patel has defeated a High Court action to block the deportation of migrants to Rwanda, paving the way for the first flight next week.

       Justice Jonathan Swift rejected an attempt to injunct the first flight next Tuesday by a coalition of refugee charities, a union representing Border Force staff and one of the asylum seekers.

       It represents a significant victory for the Home Secretary in facing down human rights lawyers whom she has blamed for obstructing plans designed to deter migrants from making dangerous Channel crossings and to break the business model of people smugglers.

       However, it will not stop individual asylum seekers from mounting legal challenges to their removal to Rwanda and a full-blown judicial review of the policy which Justice Swift said could take six weeks. He also granted an appeal on the injunction likely to be held on Monday.

       Around 100 of the migrants have already been taken off Tuesday's flight after their lawyers claimed it would breach their human rights. Just 32 currently remain on the manifest although most, if not all of them, are expected to take legal action to avoid removal to Rwanda.

       Rwanda 'a safe haven for refugees'

       Ms Patel said: “I welcome the court’s decision in our favour and will now continue to deliver on progressing our world-leading Migration Partnership.

       “People will continue to try and prevent their relocation through legal challenges and last-minute claims but we will not be deterred in breaking the deadly people smuggling trade and ultimately save lives.

       “Rwanda is a safe country and has previously been recognised for providing a safe haven for refugees – we will continue preparations for the first flight to Rwanda, alongside the range of other measures intended to reduce small boat crossings.”

       The Prime Minister tweeted his response to the ruling:

       As Friday’s hearing opened, Home Office lawyers disclosed that five more migrants - including three who were party to the action - would no longer be removed on Tuesday, reducing the number to 32.

       Risk of 'serious irreparable harm'

       The judge's decision came despite a last-minute intervention by the UN refugee agency which told the court that it had “serious concerns” that the “unlawful” policy risked “serious irreparable harm” to the refugees

       In its submission to the court, the UNHCR claimed the scheme failed to meet the required standards of “legality and appropriateness” for transferring asylum seekers from one country to another.

       Lawyers for the two charities Detention Action and Care4Calais and PCS union claimed the agency’s evidence undermined the Home Secretary’s claim to have the backing of the UNHCR for the Rwanda deportation plan.

       “Her assessment…that the UNHCR is giving this plan a green light is a false claim,” said Raza Husain, the barrister representing the charities Detention Action and Care4Calais and PCS union.

       Mathew Gullick, QC, the barrister for the Home Office, rejected claims that the policy was unlawful and said it served an important public interest in removing people whose claims were inadmissible because they had made dangerous, unnecessary journeys to reach the UK.

       He said it was in the public interest to deter people from making these journeys facilitated by people smugglers when they had travelled through safe third-party countries.

       In documents submitted to the court, he said: "It is striking that nowhere in the claimants' submissions [to stop the flight] is there any consideration of the impact of any public interest factors, still less any analysis or balancing of the importance of the public interest being pursued in this regard."

       The UNHCR document, submitted to the court, stated it had “serious concerns that asylum seekers transferred from the UK to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status, with consequent risks of refoulement.”

       Refoulement is the legal term for the forcible removal of refugees to a country where they are liable to face persecution.

       It warned that the asylum system in Rwanda where the migrants will be expected to claim refuge is “nascent,” having largely dealt with refugees from neighbouring countries such as Burundi.

       “In UNHCR’s assessment, there is a serious risk that the burden of processing the asylum claims of new arrivals from the UK could further overstretch the capacity of the Rwandan national asylum system, thereby undermining its ability to provide protection for all those who seek asylum,” it said.

       The UNHCR concluded: “The UK-Rwanda arrangement fails to meet the required standards relating to the legality and appropriateness of bilateral or multilateral transfers of asylum-seekers.

       “This arrangement, which amongst other concerns seeks to shift responsibility and lacks necessary safeguards, is incompatible with the letter and spirit of the 1951 Convention.

       “In UNHCR’s view, the UK-Rwanda arrangement cannot be brought into line with international legal obligations through minor adjustments.

       “The serious concerns outlined in the present analysis require urgent and appropriate consideration by the governments of the UK and Rwanda in line with their obligations under well-established and binding norms of international refugee law.”