THE High Court is not required to accept the stark warnings made by the United Nations refugee agency over the safety of the Rwanda deal, government lawyers have claimed. 

On the fourth day of the legal challenge against the plans, lawyers for the Home Office argued that the court was entitled to make its own assessment of the scheme. 

UNHCR — the UN refugee agency — previously told the court that Rwanda could not be relied on to comply with the Refugee Convention.

It argued that there was therefore a risk the African nation would not abide by assurances that asylum-seekers deported from Britain would be treated fairly in Rwanda. 

The refugee agency, which acts as the “guardian” of the Refugee Convention worldwide, told the court its long-term presence in Rwanda means its evidence should be afforded particular weight. 

However on Thursday, Lord James Eadie QC, for the Home Office, argued that UNHCR does not have “judicial or quasi-judicial status,” and that the courts are “entitled and indeed bound to make their assessment about the deliverability of assurances and the safety of systems.”

“And if those views differ on all of the evidence before this court from views expressed by UNHCR, so be it,” he added. 

Sir James said the agency was “neither expert nor experienced in relation to these arrangements,” and the “expertise and experience” of assessing Rwanda’s commitments “resides in the government and not UNHCR.” 

Rwanda has made assurances to Britain that it will provide asylum-seekers with adequate accommodation, free medical assistance, free languages classes and interpreters to help with their asylum claims, among other promises. 

Describing Rwanda as a “reputable sovereign country,” Sir James added that it was the Home Office’s “expert” view the state will “comply with the assurances that it has solemnly given,” in the memorandum of understanding signed between the two countries. 

This is because Rwanda has both “reputational and financial incentives” to meet its commitments in the memorandum — a non-legally binding document — he claimed. 

The court heard that the British government will provide “very substantial sums” to Rwanda, on top of a £120 million upfront payment to incentivise Rwanda to comply with the assurances. 

The undisclosed sums, which will be given to Rwanda to fund the stay of each deported asylum-seeker for at least three years, are likely to raise doubts about ministers’ claims the deal will save Britain money “in the long-run.”

Sir James later dismissed UNHCR claims that asylum-seekers would be at risk of being deported from Rwanda to countries where they could face persecution and torture, a crime known as refoulement. 

The lawyer said there was “no good reason” to support these claims, despite evidence from UNHCR of recent cases where asylum-seekers from Syria and Afghanistan were deported from Rwanda. 

He added later that there was “no risk” of refoulement because the “overwhelming likelihood” if Rwanda were to carry out returns would be to send asylum-seekers back to Britain. 

The five-day hearing is due to conclude today, with a judgement not expected until later this year.