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
26 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2675 (Admin)
High Court
The government wrongly moved a vulnerable asylum seeker far from his support network. The court said the government made a bad decision and should have listened to evidence showing the move would harm him.
Key Facts
- •Claimant, a vulnerable Afghan asylum seeker with mental health needs, was housed in Swindon after his asylum claim was initially refused.
- •Claimant had lived in South London for 8 years with a strong support network.
- •The Home Office refused his request to remain in South London based on medical advice that suitable services existed elsewhere.
- •A local authority care needs assessment concluded the Claimant was at substantial risk if moved and needed to stay in South London.
- •The Home Office did not adequately consider the care needs assessment or the Claimant's support network.
- •Claimant was granted asylum during the court proceedings but remained in Swindon accommodation.
Legal Principles
Section 95 accommodation must appear adequate for the supported person's needs.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 96(1)(a)
The Home Office must consider local authority assessments when deciding on accommodation.
ASCN Guidance
Decision-makers must ask the right questions and obtain relevant information.
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014
The Home Office cannot simply delegate its statutory duty to a medical advisor.
Judgement
Outcomes
Judicial review claim allowed.
The Home Office acted unlawfully by failing to consider relevant evidence (care needs assessment, support letters) when deciding on accommodation. The process was flawed and lacked proper evaluation of the Claimant's situation.
Renewed permission application on the policy challenge refused.
The issue had become academic due to the Claimant being granted asylum. Court resources should be focused on matters of immediate concern.
Declaration issued stating the Home Office acted unlawfully in both June 1st and June 9th decisions.
Failure to consider the care needs assessment and other relevant evidence rendered the decisions unlawful.
Similar Cases
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
SA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin)
R (MQ) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 205 (Admin)
RMO v Secretary Of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 1826 (Admin)