PA & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2476 (Admin)
SAG & Ors v Secretary of State for The Home Department
21 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2984 (Admin)
High Court
Three people challenged the government's rule stopping them from getting benefits. The court said the government's way of handling cases was sometimes unfair and too slow, potentially causing harm. One person won their case, but the others didn't because the government's mistakes didn't actually cause them problems.
Key Facts
- •Three cases involving foreign nationals with leave to remain in the UK, each subject to a 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF) condition.
- •Claimants argued the NRPF condition was unlawful on common law grounds, breached the 2009 Act's welfare of children duty, and violated Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
- •Cases involved challenges to the Home Office's approach to lifting NRPF conditions, particularly when reliant on third-party support.
- •The Home Office's system for dealing with NRPF condition applications was challenged for delays and lack of prioritization in urgent cases.
Legal Principles
NRPF condition legality
Common law, Immigration Act 1971, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, Human Rights Act 1998, ECHR Article 3
Duty to safeguard and promote children's welfare
Section 55, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009
Article 3 ECHR (inhuman or degrading treatment) and systems duty
ECHR Article 3, Human Rights Act 1998, relevant case law (e.g., R (Limbuela) v SSHD, ASY v SSHD)
Evidential requirements and 'evidential flexibility'
Immigration Rules, Home Office Guidance
Imminent risk of destitution
Section 95, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Immigration Rules, Home Office Guidance
Outcomes
SAG: No quashing order or declaration; NRPF condition lifted.
The unlawful decision was corrected, and the claimant suffered no demonstrable prejudice.
LG: Challenge to refusal of NRPF removal dismissed.
The Secretary of State's decision was deemed lawful based on the evidence.
BPB: Decision to not lift NRPF condition quashed.
Decision flawed at common law and breached section 55 of the 2009 Act; failure to adequately assess child's best interests.
Declaration of systemic breach of Article 3 ECHR systems duty.
Home Office's system for determining NRPF condition applications was insufficiently timeous to prevent inhuman or degrading treatment.