New judgment likely to affect the operation of the Government’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) policy
n a significant judgement handed down today, the High Court ruled that the Home Office’s system for deciding ‘change of conditions’ applications that permit destitute migrants to access to public funds is unlawful due to delays in processing applications.
Members of EIN can read the judgment in SAG & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 2984 (Admin) here. A publicly accessible version of the judgment is here.
3 Paper Buildings’ (3PB’s) Ben Amunwa was instructed in the case by Deighton Pierce Glynn (DPG) solicitors.
In a press release, 3PB noted that the case challenged widespread delays affecting the operation of the Government’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) policy and decisions made on applications to lift the NRPF condition. The claimants in the case – three families subjected to NRPF – had endured homelessness and severe hardship, struggling to meet their basic needs for extended periods.
DPG noted in a press release that change of conditions applications are made by people subject to NRPF who need to access that support because they are, or are nearly, destitute.
In its submissions to the High Court, the Home Office stated: “The waiting times for change of conditions applications for those who have permission to stay on the basis of their family or private life to be assigned to a caseworker, is currently approximately 10 weeks.”
Ben Amunwa explained on X that the High Court found such a delay was unlawful as the Government had breached its positive duty under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to reduce the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment to a reasonable minimum.
Mr Justice Johnson stated in the judgment: “It is important not to impose a disproportionate or unrealistic burden on the Home Office. The courts have been careful not to require that decisions be made within any specific inflexible deadline. What is, however, required is a sufficient system that reduces the risk as far as practically and proportionately possible. Simply having a system of case-by-case review and expedition where that is thought necessary does not achieve that end. At the very least, if the average time to determine an application is as long as 70-days, the system needs to ensure that applications are considered, on a triage basis, sufficiently swiftly to enable case-by-case review and expedition to be effective in reducing the risk. So far as appears from the evidence that has been adduced by the Secretary of State (who has had every opportunity to deal with this point) the system that is in place does not do that bare minimum. To reach that conclusion, I have not taken account of the case studies that have been presented on behalf of the claimants. Accordingly, the system that is in place does not sufficiently reduce the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. There is thus a breach of the low-level systems duty.”
Ben Amunwa further noted on X that such broad findings, which go beyond the facts of individual cases to address the overall operation of a government policy or system, are rare in his experience.
According to 3PB, the judgment is likely to affect the operation of the NRPF system and the many hundreds or thousands of individuals experiencing hardship as a result of being subject to it.
The claimants in the case were supported by the charitable Unity Project, which runs regular casework sessions to help people with NRPF make change of conditions applications for recourse to public funds. Ahead of the hearing, the Unity Project’s director, Michael Boyle, said: “We think that everyone living in the UK should have access to welfare support to protect them from crisis. And yet we frequently come across families like these who are trapped in destitution by the ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy. This is a policy which has been found to be unlawful multiple time already and it needs to change, which is what we hope this legal challenge will achieve.”
Source: https://www.ein.org.uk/news/high-court-finds-home-office-delays-supporting-destitute-migrants-breached-echr-duty-prevent
