The High Court ordered the Home Office to provide suitable accommodation for a severely disabled child as part of their asylum support.
Background:
AYW is the mother of ACR, a severely disabled five-year-old son who had multiple complex medical conditions requiring specialist care and treatment. He experiences several seizures a day and is fed by a PEG-J feeding tube. AYW cares for ACR in every aspect of his daily life as he is unable to move around, walk or crawl.
They arrived in the UK in June 2021, claimed asylum the following day, and were granted asylum support accommodation (ASA) under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The asylum claim stemmed from their fleeing Mexico following the killing of the husband by a gang.
Since June 2021, the claimants have been accommodated in various rooms at a Best Western Hotel and have been in the same room since 2022, which is too small to meet the Second Claimant's needs.
The claimants’ asylum and human rights claims were refused on 13 December 2023 and an appeal is ongoing. However, they remain eligible for support pursuant to Sections 95 and 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Due to his condition, ACR received specialist medical treatment from various NHS teams in the London Borough of Southwark, and his care providers strongly advised that he remain in the area for continuity of care. He also attends a school which is not in the London Borough of Southwark.
The defendant had been on notice since December 2023 that the claimants' accommodation was inadequate and urgently required relocation, but had been unable to secure suitable accommodation within Southwark. On the 29th of October 2024, a judicial review was lodged challenging the failure to provide suitable accommodation.
Decision:
The first legal issue was whether the Home Office had breached its statutory duties under Sections 95 and 96 of the IAA 1999 by not providing suitable accommodation. Given the concession of a breach made by the Home Secretary, the Court’s focus was on the appropriate remedy and, in particular, whether it was appropriate to make a mandatory order. The Court applied the principles from R (Imam) v Croydon London Borough Council and determined that a mandatory order was the appropriate remedy, considering that the defendant had been on notice of the breach for 12 months, with little evidence of any proper efforts to secure adequate accommodation.
The Court, however, also balanced the need for compliance with practical considerations such as the difficulties in finding adequate housing within the limited location by allowing the consideration of other locations for the new accommodation. The Judge highlighted the systemic issues within the Home Office's handling of asylum support. The Court noted, “If there are systemic shortcomings in the defendant complying with Sections 95 and 96 of the IAA then that is a reason to make a mandatory order providing it is not impossible to comply with its terms.”
The Court rejected the request to adjourn by noting that “simply making a declaration and no more would not, in my judgement, meet the justice/injustice of this case. The chronology in this case and an analysis of what has taken place and more importantly what has not taken place is proof positive of the need for a mandatory order. Refusing to make an order or adjourning these proceedings for three months would not be the correct approach.”
A long stop date for compliance was given until 24 February 2025.
Implications:
This judgement highlights the courts’ commitment to protecting vulnerable asylum seekers and providing them with adequate accommodation as mandated by the law. The Judge restated the need for the Home Office to take all reasonable steps to fulfil its obligations. This decision also underscores the high threshold put on the Home Office in establishing ‘impossibility’.
For asylum seekers, it is important to remember that if you are entitled to Section 95 support, then such support must be adequate as long as it is reasonable and not impossible.
