The Rwanda policy: a conversation with Jennifer MacLeod

The LSESU Pro Bono Division of the Law Society hosted barrister Jennifer MacLeod for a panel on the legality and practical reality of the UK government’s Rwanda policy. The event was organised by Natalie Cheung, Head of Awareness. This article was written by Elena Askew-Renaut, a second-year BSc Politics and Philosophy student at the LSE, and Head of Communications for the Website & Blog of the LSESU Pro Bono Division of the Law Society.

For readers unfamiliar with the litigation, the Rwanda policy originates from the Migration and Economic Development Partnership announced by the UK government in April 2022. Under this scheme, certain asylum seekers who arrived irregularly in the UK would be sent to Rwanda. Their asylum claims would be processed there, and those granted refugee status would remain in Rwanda rather than return to Britain. The government presented the policy as a deterrent to dangerous Channel crossings.

Legal challenges followed immediately. The central legal objection relied on the principle of non-refoulement, a rule in international and domestic law that prohibits transferring an individual to a country where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment. This is reflected in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Claimants argued that Rwanda’s asylum system could not reliably prevent refoulement. Other challenges raised procedural unfairness and breaches of the UK’s duties under the Refugee Convention.

Jennifer MacLeod became involved as counsel for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which acted as an intervener. An intervener is not a claimant or a defendant but is permitted by the court to provide evidence or legal argument when the case concerns broader public interest. She described the case as one of the most intense periods of her career. The first hearing was scheduled within weeks of the policy being announced, leaving little time to assemble evidence or prepare submissions. She recalled working on fifteen distinct legal issues, corresponding with contacts in Rwanda, and coordinating with solicitors who were handling direct client representation. She said there was enormous pressure to “get it right”, both because of the individual claimants involved and the systemic implications for future asylum policy.

The Supreme Court’s judgment arrived in November 2023. MacLeod stressed that the court did not reject offshore processing as a concept. Offshore processing refers to outsourcing asylum procedures to a third country rather than carrying them out in the country where the asylum seeker arrives. The court instead focused on whether Rwanda was safe in practice. With reference to UNHCR evidence, it found there were substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda faced a real risk of refoulement. Rwanda’s asylum system was found to lack effective appeal mechanisms, independent decision-making, and safeguards against forced return to countries of origin. Previous incidents of refoulement by Rwanda were central to the ruling.

MacLeod said this made the case “much more nuanced” than press coverage suggested. The success rested on one legal ground (the human rights ground under Article 3) and only because of Rwanda’s situation “at that moment in time”. The judgment did not permanently block the policy: the UK government has since signed a treaty with Rwanda and declared it a safe country. Whether future courts accept this will depend on evidence rather than political assurances.

The discussion then moved beyond the judgment to her experience and the realities of pro bono work. MacLeod acknowledged the challenges of the work but emphasised that, despite tight deadlines and heavy workloads, pro bono work remains “essentially necessary” to ensure that these claims can be brought at all. While she believes that lawyers should be paid for their work, she also noted that unpaid work continues to play a vital role in safeguarding access to justice. MacLeod has consistently dedicated a significant part of her practice to pro bono work, not for recognition or moral gratification, but because she sees this commitment as an indispensable part of ensuring accountability and protecting fundamental rights.

Her reflections on other cases illustrated the same principle. In the East Kent Hospital inquest into the death of Harry Richford, she represented the family. The case involved no constitutional issues, but she described the significance of being the “mouthpiece” through which a family’s experience could finally be heard in a public forum. In another example, she represented Elizabeth Coppin before the UN Committee Against Torture in a case concerning Ireland’s Magdalene Laundries. The case was lost on the substantive human rights claim, but they secured procedural recognition that the complaint was admissible despite the time that had passed. She said the real impact was that Coppin’s story was formally investigated and helped shift public conversation in Ireland. She also spoke about her work in Johannesburg with the Socio-Economic Rights Institute, focusing on gender-based violence and housing insecurity in informal settlements. South Africa, she said, has an advanced legal framework, but legal victories often failed to translate into real change because implementation on the ground was weak.

Toward the end of the panel, the discussion turned to jurisdiction and the future of human rights law in the UK. MacLeod explained that she qualified at the Irish Bar in 2018 in order to continue appearing before the Court of Justice of the European Union after Brexit. She said this was a practical decision rather than a symbolic gesture. She added that human rights law now faces a “huge backlash”, both domestically and internationally. Treaty bodies are underfunded, and governments increasingly view legal constraints on migration policy as obstacles. While she did not predict outcomes, she acknowledged that debate around the UK’s possible withdrawal from the ECHR is no longer theoretical.

The event underscored a simple but powerful point for the audience: the law is only effective when people insist on using it, and pro bono work remains an essential force in making meaningful rights protection possible.