THE KING (on the application of CVN) v LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON
[2023] EWHC 464 (Admin)
BCD (by his Litigation Friend EFG), R (on the application of) v Birmingham Children’s Trust
26 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 137 (Admin)
High Court
A grandmother caring for her British grandkids couldn't get enough money from the council because of her immigration status. The court said this was unfair because British kids should get more help, and the council should have given the family more money.
Key Facts
- •BCD, a 7-year-old British child, is the claimant in a judicial review claim against Birmingham Children's Trust (Defendant).
- •BCD's Jamaican grandmother, EFG, is his carer and has 'No Recourse to Public Funds' (NRPF).
- •EFG applied for support under s.17 Children Act 1989 after BCD's mother died.
- •The Defendant paid EFG £196.24 per week (equivalent to asylum support) from February to August 2021.
- •The claim challenges this payment as discriminatory under Art.14 ECHR, arguing that British children in similar circumstances should receive more support.
Legal Principles
Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need (s.17 Children Act 1989).
Children Act 1989, s.17
Art.14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights. This includes 'Thlimmenos discrimination': failing to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different without objective and reasonable justification.
Art.14 ECHR; Thlimmenos v Greece
The Asylum Support scheme (ss.95-96 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) provides only for 'essential living needs'.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, ss.95-96
Schedule 3 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 restricts support for certain ineligible persons, with exceptions to avoid breaching Convention rights (para. 3).
Schedule 3 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
In Art.14 discrimination claims, justification requires a legitimate aim, rational connection, proportionality, and a weighing of interests.
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No.2)
Outcomes
The claim succeeds.
The Defendant's payment of £196.24 per week did not meet the children's assessed needs, and this similar treatment of differently situated individuals (those with and without the right to remain in the UK) constituted Art.14 ECHR discrimination. The justifications offered by the Defendant were not sufficient.
Similar Cases
DK R, (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
[2023] EWHC 1833 (Admin)
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
YVR (R on the application of) v Birmingham City Council
[2024] EWHC 701 (Admin)
The Home Office v ASY & Ors
[2023] EWHC 196 (KB)