EXC, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 935 (Admin)
PM (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
23 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1551 (Admin)
High Court
A woman who was a victim of modern slavery and seeking asylum in the UK wasn't given enough money to live on. A court ruled that the government broke the law by stopping her payments and then giving her less money, because they didn't follow their own rules or talk to people who could help them make a better decision. The court did say that while there were problems with how much money she was given, the amount wasn't so low it was illegal, and she got the basics she needed.
Key Facts
- •The claimant is a victim of modern slavery and an asylum seeker.
- •The Secretary of State ceased support payments to the claimant on July 6, 2020, and reinstated them at a lower rate on August 28, 2020.
- •The claimant challenged the cessation and reduction of support payments.
- •The case was stayed pending the judgment in R (JB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
- •The claimant received various payments from the Home Office and her accommodation provider (Serco).
- •The claimant argued that the support provided was insufficient to meet her essential living and recovery needs.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State has a duty to provide support to asylum seekers who are destitute or likely to become destitute.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (IAA), sections 95 and 98
The Secretary of State must follow guidance issued under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 unless there is good reason not to do so.
R (EM) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1070
Subsistence support for victims of trafficking must go beyond meeting essential living needs and also cover pecuniary assistance with recovery needs.
R (K and M) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 2951 (Admin)
There is no general duty to consult at common law, but a duty may arise in exceptional cases where failure to consult would lead to conspicuous unfairness.
R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 1662 (QB)
A public body has a duty to carry out a sufficient inquiry before making a decision (Tameside duty).
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Metropolitan Borough of Tameside [1976] 3 All ER 665
Outcomes
The claim succeeds on Grounds 1 and 2(a).
The Secretary of State unlawfully failed to make payments of £65 per week to the claimant under the Guidance, and unlawfully failed to consult before implementing the Amended Guidance.
The remainder of the claim is dismissed.
The court found that the level of financial support under the Amended Guidance did not unlawfully fail to meet victims' recovery needs, and did not unlawfully discriminate against victims in initial accommodation. The claimant's essential living needs were also met.
Similar Cases
HA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1876 (Admin)
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
XY v The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
[2024] EWHC 81 (Admin)
GVA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2838 (Admin)