Suella Braverman said she remained ‘fully committed’ to the policy (Picture: AFP/Getty)

Suella Braverman has lashed out at ‘phoney humanitarianism’ impeding efforts to stop Channel crossings as the Government lost the latest court battle over its plans to send migrants to Rwanda.

The Home Secretary claimed the system was ‘rigged against the British people’ after Appeal Court judges ruled her multimillion-pound deal – which would see asylum seekers deported to the east African nation – was unlawful.

Ministers are braced for a fresh legal fight over the policy as Rishi Sunak said he ‘fundamentally’ disagreed with the decision and confirmed the Government would take the case to the Supreme Court.

The decision, overturning an earlier ruling which found Rwanda could be considered da ‘safe third country’, is the latest setback in the PM’s bid to ‘stop the boats’ – one of his flagship pledges.

Ms Braverman said she remained ‘fully committed’ to the policy and, despite the ruling, insisted she still had ‘every confidence’ in the plan while stressing that Rwanda was a safe country.

When asked if she blamed ‘lefty lawyers’ or ‘the blob’ for the defeat, she told broadcasters: ‘The system is rigged against the British people, it’s as simple as that.

‘It’s why we’re changing the laws through our Illegal Migration Bill.’

Suella Braverman told MPs that ‘phoney humanitarianism’ was holding back plans to tackle Channel crossings (Picture: AFP via Getty)

She then doubled down on her claims in the Commons, telling MPs that ‘phoney humanitarianism’ was holding back plans to tackle Channel crossings.

But Labour said the decision showed the Government’s efforts were ‘completely unravelling’.

Sir Keir Starmer slammed the policy as a ‘headline-grabbing gimmick’, telling reporters during a visit to North Yorkshire: ‘What the court’s judgment shows is they’ve spent that £140 million of taxpayers’ money without even doing the basics to see whether the scheme was really fit for purpose.’

His deputy, Angela Rayner, said there had been ‘more Conservative home secretaries in Rwanda than we’ve had asylum seekers sent there’ while shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper told the Commons the policy was a ‘total con on the British people’.

In the 161-page ruling following the appeal heard in April, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill concluded ‘deficiencies’ in the asylum system in Rwanda mean there is a ‘real risk’ asylum seekers could be returned to their home country and face persecution or other inhumane treatment when they may have a good claim for asylum.

‘Our conclusion on the safety of Rwanda issue means that the Rwanda policy must be declared unlawful,’ Sir Geoffrey added.

Rishi Sunak said he ‘fundamentally’ disagreed with the decision and confirmed the Government would take the case to the Supreme Court (Picture: PA)

Mr Sunak said: ‘While I respect the court I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions.

‘I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries – something that the Lord Chief Justice agrees with.’

The Rwandan Government said it took ‘issue’ with the Court of Appeal’s ruling and insisted it was ‘one of the safest countries in the world’.

Downing Street refused to say whether it still believes any migrants will be sent to Rwanda before the next election.

‘The system is rigged against the British people, it’s as simple as that.’