Five of the UK’s most senior judges have ruled that the government’s plan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful. Here we take a look at what happened and its implications for the government’s flagship policy. Is the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda dead after the supreme court’s judgment? The judgment was damning and unanimous. It will prevent the UK government from lawfully removing anyone to Rwanda, based on the evidence as it currently stands. In a statement, the new home secretary, James Cleverly, declined to rule out a scheme that sends asylum seekers to a third country, saying there was “clearly an appetite for this concept”. Rishi Sunak told MPs after the judgment that he was planning to finalise a new deal with Rwanda. What would the government have to do now to send people to Rwanda? The president of the supreme court, Lord Reed, made clear that the court’s decision was based on the available evidence, which showed that the rights of asylum seekers would be at risk in Rwanda. If the situation should change in Rwanda, it could be reviewed. At prime minister’s questions, Sunak made clear that he would “finalise” a new treaty with Rwanda in light of the supreme court’s judgment. He said he was “prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks” if necessary. A report by Policy Exchange, a thinktank close to Downing Street, has suggested that the government could manage the asylum process itself, taking the job of case assessment away from the Rwandan government. What are Sunak’s other options? The judgment confirmed that it is legal to send asylum seekers to a third country to have their claims processed. So the prime minister could try to find other countries willing to accept asylum seekers. He could attempt to make arrangements in Rwanda that reduce the risk of “refoulement”, or asylum seekers being sent back to their home countries, for example by the UK government managing the asylum process. He could follow the demands of rightwing Tories who on Wednesday called for withdrawal from the European convention of human rights. Some MPs have called for withdrawal from UN treaties including the refugee convention, the UN convention against torture and the international covenant on civil and political rights. He could also repeal parts or all of the Human Rights Act. What has happened to the £140m of public money already spent on the scheme? A spokesperson for the Rwandan government said: “The money has been already allocated to a number of government projects.” What happens to the UK government’s recent legislation to cut illegal migration by sending people to a third country? Experts from the Law Society and the Refugee Council say the Illegal Migration Act is now dead in the water and that tens of thousands of people who have entered the UK since it passed into law should have their cases heard. People who have arrived in the UK by irregular means since 22 July have been housed in hotels but not had their asylum cases assessed because they were deemed to be “permanently inadmissible” after the law’s passing. Nick Emmerson, the Law Society president, said: “The ruling must also call into question the Illegal Migration Act as a whole as it is heavily connected to the Rwanda policy. We have repeatedly raised concerns about whether the act is workable in practice. It is also widely considered to be incompatible with international law. “The act is reliant on removing people from the UK. The Rwanda removals agreement has been ruled unlawful and there are currently no other removal agreements in place to ‘safe’ third countries.”