What does the latest High Court ruling mean for the government's Rwanda policy?

Ms Braverman told MPs she wants to bring an end to illegal Channel crossings, by starting up the scheme "as soon as possible". Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana reports

Suella Braverman said it was her dream and obsession to see a flight take off to Rwanda - deporting asylum seekers who have arrived here by boat. So, will today's ruling bring her dream a step closer?

On the one hand, this clearly has a big positive element for the government. The overall ruling says the policy is lawful.

That means the High Court judges rejected arguments about Rwanda's human rights record, and the UN's own refugee agency (the UNHCR) arguing that the policy represented the UK dodging our international obligations.

But the other part of the judgement is critical. The judges said the home secretary needed to look at the personal circumstances in each case before deciding to deport someone. And in the eight cases in front of the court today, they said she had failed to do that.

The result was that all eight had their deportations effectively quashed.

All of which reminds me of the summer when charities tried to ground the first flight due to go to Rwanda on similar grounds. The judge at the time said no - the flight is free to go. But every individual challenged their deportation, and in the end there was no one to take.

Meanwhile - beyond the individual resistance is a likely appeal on the main ruling - which could go to the Court of Appeal - and then to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps, the government does not mind the optics of taking on what they would brand "leftie lawyers" but meanwhile the substantive issue remains - how to deter people from embarking on deadly journeys across the Channel. Four died last week when one overloaded dinghy got into trouble.

Even if this policy does come to fruition many question its likely efficacy. The government insists it will be a deterrent but - as I revealed back in April - the permanent secretary in the home office refused to sign this policy off himself, because there was not enough evidence of deterrence to guarantee value for money.

That is not to say it won't work - but just that there isn't the evidence to prove it yet.

Despite stating that crossing the Channel was unimaginably scary, Ali believes the Rwanda policy will do little to dissuade people from trying

And one asylum seeker I spoke to articulated his scepticism. Ali, 35, who fled religious persecution in Iran and is now in a hotel in Reading waiting for his claim to be processed, told me that the Rwanda policy wouldn't have deterred him.

He said crossing the channel was so scary, it was unimaginable. Far more terrifying than deportation to Rwanda. And yet people did it, he said, because they were desperate and needed to survive.

He said the policy wouldn't deter anyone.

He said people often saw asylum seekers as uneducated and "useless" but argued that many had skills that could help Britain. He pointed to several lorry drivers, for example. Ali himself is a physicist and who writes research papers.

But Ali, who was supported by The Refugee Council, an organisation that aids asylum seekers and refugees, did fear one thing about Rwanda. Because of its relationship with Iran (something I've heard before) he feared being returned to Iran from there. He said if that happened - he was sure he and others would be executed.

Opposition politicians have argued the Rwanda policy is inhumane, and Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, argued it was unproven and wouldn't work.

But Braverman argued it was needed to control borders - and for the PM tackling illegal immigration is key. He is quite frustrated at being unable to take action more quickly.

Today's ruling will be welcomed inside government, but officials know - there is a long way to go. The Rwanda policy has cleared one hurdle - but it faces a few more yet.

Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know.