ASY & Ors v Home Office
[2024] EWCA Civ 373
The Home Office v ASY & Ors
30 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 196 (KB)
High Court
Mums couldn't get benefits because of a government rule. The rule was unfair, but the mums got the benefits later. The court said they couldn't get extra money just because the rule was bad, only if they'd been treated badly *because* of the rule.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Bristol County Court order awarding damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of Article 3 ECHR.
- •Respondents (Claimants) were non-British single mothers with British children, granted limited leave to remain (LLTR) with a 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF) condition.
- •Claimants' financial circumstances deteriorated due to the NRPF condition, leading to destitution.
- •The old NRPF scheme was declared unlawful in R (W) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] 1 WLR 4420.
- •Claimants argued damages were owed for breach of procedural rights under Article 3 ECHR due to the unlawful NRPF scheme.
- •The County Court judge awarded substantial damages, stayed pending this appeal.
- •The appeal focuses on whether damages are payable for breach of Article 3 procedural rights without proof of actual inhuman or degrading treatment (IDT).
Legal Principles
Article 3 ECHR prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
European Convention on Human Rights
Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows courts to grant remedies for breaches of Convention rights, including damages.
Human Rights Act 1998
Damages under section 8 require a causal link between the violation and the damage; mere speculation is insufficient.
Human Rights Act 1998 & ECtHR Practice Direction
Article 3 imposes not only a prohibition on inflicting IDT but also a proactive duty to avoid the risk of imminent Article 3 breach where the state's acts create such a risk.
Case law interpretation of Article 3
A state's duty under Article 3 may include a systems duty, operational duty, and procedural/investigative duty. The Claimants' case focuses on a low-level systems duty.
Case law interpretation of Article 3
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; County Court's decision quashed.
The judge failed to identify the nature and scope of the Article 3 violation, misconstrued the decision in R (W), and misunderstood the conditions and scope of Article 3's procedural duty. The Claimants failed to show a breach of Article 3 because they did not demonstrate that the Home Office wrongly decided their applications to lift the NRPF condition or unreasonably delayed doing so.
Similar Cases
SAG & Ors v Secretary of State for The Home Department
[2024] EWHC 2984 (Admin)
PA & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2476 (Admin)
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v AT
[2023] EWCA Civ 1307
AB v Worcestershire County Council & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 529