SA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin)
HA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
21 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1876 (Admin)
High Court
The court ruled the government must give money, not just food and shelter, to pregnant asylum seekers and their young children. It also said the government was too slow in giving asylum seekers money and housing, and that its methods were unfair. However, it wasn't cruel enough to violate human rights laws.
Key Facts
- •Five judicial review applications concerning the Home Secretary's obligations under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 to provide accommodation and support to asylum claimants.
- •HA and SXK's claim focused on whether additional support for pregnant women and children under 3 (regulation 10A) must be cash or can be in-kind.
- •K's application involved significant delay in deciding a section 95 application and the obligation under section 98 to provide temporary support.
- •NY's case involved a delay in providing section 95 support after agreement.
- •AM's claim concerned the assessment of costs.
- •The asylum support system faced pressures due to the pandemic, impacting accommodation and decision-making times.
Legal Principles
Home Secretary's duty to provide support under section 95 of the 1999 Act if a claimant is destitute or likely to become destitute.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 95
Methods of providing support under section 96 of the 1999 Act, including accommodation and essential living needs.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 96
Regulation 10 of the 2000 Regulations specifies a general rule of weekly cash payment for essential living needs, with exceptions.
Asylum Support Regulations 2000, regulation 10
Regulation 10A of the 2000 Regulations mandates additional support for pregnant women and children under 3, generally as a cash payment.
Asylum Support Regulations 2000, regulation 10A
Prompt determination of section 95 applications is implied despite lack of explicit timeframe.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 95; Asylum Support Regulations 2000, regulation 3
Section 98 of the 1999 Act provides for temporary support pending section 95 decisions.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 98
Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires action to avoid imminent breaches of Convention rights, including Article 3.
Human Rights Act 1998, section 6
Outcomes
HA and SXK succeed. Regulation 10A payments should have been made from the date section 95 support should have started; provision in-kind was insufficient.
Regulation 10A requires cash payments unless exceptional circumstances under section 96(2) apply. In-kind provision was inadequate.
K and NY succeed. The Home Secretary failed to determine section 95 applications promptly and to provide timely support.
Unreasonable delays in processing section 95 applications breached the implied duty of promptness. Delays in providing support after a positive section 95 decision were also unlawful. The Home Secretary's 'Practice' and 'Approach' were unlawful.
K and NY’s Article 3 claims fail.
The evidence did not meet the high threshold for Article 3 ill-treatment despite difficult circumstances.
AM succeeds. Costs will be assessed on the indemnity basis for the entire proceedings.
The Home Secretary's unreasonable delay in addressing AM’s claim justifies indemnity costs.
Similar Cases
PM (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1551 (Admin)
ZR v London Borough of Haringey & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1476 (Admin)
NS, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office
[2023] EWHC 2675 (Admin)
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)