SA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

14 July 2023

[2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin)

High Court

A family of asylum seekers lived in a tiny, unsuitable hotel room for way too long. The court said the government should have given them a proper home and ordered them to do so.

Key Facts

•The Claimant, a 42-year-old asylum seeker, arrived in the UK in December 2021 with four children.
•The Home Secretary provided initial accommodation in hotels (Croydon and Peckham).
•The family's accommodation was deemed inadequate due to cramped conditions, insufficient laundry facilities, lack of space for meals, homework, and play.
•The case involved a review of the Home Secretary's statutory duty to provide "adequate" accommodation under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005.
•The Home Secretary's adherence to its own Healthcare Needs and Pregnancy Dispersal Policy was challenged.
•The family lived in severely cramped conditions for a prolonged period (over 15 months).
•There was a lack of evidence from the Home Secretary regarding decision-making and assessments of the family's needs.
•The Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration's report highlighted the unsuitability of long-term hotel accommodation for families with children.

Legal Principles

Home Secretary's duty to provide "adequate" accommodation for asylum seekers facing destitution.

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s.95(1), s.96(1)(a), s.122(3)(4); Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005, reg.5

Adequacy of accommodation is assessed based on the needs of individuals, considering age, vulnerability, and the length of stay.

R (A) v NASS [2003] EWCA Civ 1473, R (NB) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 1489 (Admin), R (MQ) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 205 (Admin)

Twin-track test for adequate accommodation: objective minimum standard and reasonableness of evaluative judgment.

R (NB) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 1489 (Admin)

Home Secretary's duty to monitor accommodation provision and ensure diligent attention to individual cases.

R (DMA) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 3416 (Admin)

Adherence to Home Office policy unless good reason for departure exists.

Healthcare Needs and Pregnancy Dispersal Policy (3rd edition, 1.2.16)

Outcomes

Claim allowed.

The Home Secretary breached her statutory duty to provide adequate accommodation due to failure to meet objective minimum standards and unreasonable evaluative judgment. This was compounded by a failure to follow its own policy and a lack of evidence of decision-making.

Home Secretary ordered to provide adequate dispersal accommodation by 4 pm on 21 July 2023.

To remedy the breach of statutory duty.

Home Secretary ordered to pay the Claimant's costs.

Standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

SA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

R (MQ) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

NS, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office

HA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Rebecca Pickford, R (on the application of) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor