Following a lengthy hearing last year, and seven months to prepare the Judgment, the High Court has handed down a lengthy judgment on the lead claims concerning the use of the site of Wethersfield barracks for asylum accommodation.
Angus McCullough KC led a team that represented three of the four lead Claimants. David Manknell KC and Edward Waldegrave were among Counsel representing the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
In a detailed judgment, Mr Justice Mould dealt with multiple systemic grounds of challenge to the lawfulness of the use of site and the system of allocation, and individual challenges by the four lead Claimants.
Three Claimants succeeded on one of the systemic challenges, with the Court holding that there had been a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty in respect of the process by which the Secretary of State changed her allocation policy as it related to those with a disability or vulnerability. The other systemic challenges were dismissed, including a claim by the fourth Claimant that the site is generally unsuitable for asylum accommodation, as assessed at the time of the hearing. Claims that the allocation policy applied by the Secretary of State is unlawful in itself, that it failed to make appropriate provision for victims of trafficking, and that it is discriminatory on grounds of race and disability were all dismissed.
In respect of the individual claims, three of the Claimants succeeded in their claims although not on all grounds advanced. One Claimant was held to have been unsuitable for accommodation at Wethersfield for the duration of his stay, and the Court concluded that there had been a failure to make reasonable adjustments for him. Two other claimants were held to have been lawfully accommodated at Wethersfield originally, but the site was held to have been unsuitable for them during the final periods of their stay of 25 days and 11 days respectively. Claims by the Claimants that the accommodation breached their rights under Article 8 ECHR were all dismissed.
The judgment provides a review of a number of areas of law relating to asylum accommodation. The Court stated that the approach to be taken by Courts in Judicial Review claims making systemic claims was whether the system is capable of being operated in a lawful way and in relation to the policy challenge applied the test set out by the Supreme Court in R(A) and BF(Eritrea). In addition to the public sector equality duty determination, other legal points of note include confirmation that the Reception Conditions Directive no longer has any application in domestic law (whilst holding that this change had no significant impact on the issues in the case), and an explanation of the approach to be taken to Article 8 claims involving the provision of asylum accommodation.
Angus McCullough KC was instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn and Gold Jennings. David Manknell KC and Edward Waldegrave were instructed by the Government Legal Department.
The judgment can be found here.
