GVA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2838 (Admin)
FH, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
4 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1327 (Admin)
High Court
A woman waited three years for a decision on her modern slavery claim. She sued the government, saying the delay was unfair. The court agreed the system was slow but didn't break any laws because the government had reasons for prioritizing some cases over others. The government's system needs improvement, but the court said it wasn't illegal.
Key Facts
- •FH, a Kenyan national, was referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) in August 2019 after alleging she was threatened and forced out of her employer's house.
- •She received a positive reasonable grounds decision in August 2019 but a positive conclusive grounds decision only in April 2023, after initiating judicial review proceedings.
- •FH's judicial review challenged the unreasonable delay in the conclusive grounds decision, systemic delays within the SCA, and the failure to publish prioritisation criteria.
- •The Home Office used a Prioritisation List, disclosed late in the proceedings, to allocate cases, prioritising Albanian nationals, criminal justice cases, and litigation cases.
- •The court considered whether the delays breached FH's rights under Articles 4 and 8 ECHR, and whether the prioritisation policy was unlawful.
Legal Principles
Delay in making decisions must be reasonable; what is reasonable depends on the power exercised, its effects, and all circumstances.
R (O & H) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 148 (Admin)
A failure to meet the best standards is not unlawful; there must be irrational action or inaction.
R (O & H) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 148 (Admin)
Publication of a policy is required if it informs discretionary decisions where the affected individual has a right to make representations.
R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12
Article 4 ECHR imposes positive obligations on the State, including a duty to investigate potential trafficking promptly and a duty to protect victims from further harm and facilitate their recovery.
Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia (2010) 51 EHRR 1; R (TDT (Vietnam)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1395
Article 8 ECHR protects private and family life, including psychological integrity.
Botta v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 241
Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights.
Article 14 ECHR
The PSED requires public authorities to have due regard to eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity.
Section 149, Equality Act 2010
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The delays, while regrettable, were not unreasonable or unlawful. The prioritisation policy, while potentially discriminatory, was justified by legitimate aims of immigration control and was not rigidly applied. The individual delay claim was academic due to the eventual positive decision. No breach of Articles 4, 8, or 14 ECHR or the PSED was found.
Similar Cases
XY v The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
[2024] EWHC 81 (Admin)
KM, R (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 2870 (Admin)
PM (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1551 (Admin)
SAG & Ors v Secretary of State for The Home Department
[2024] EWHC 2984 (Admin)