EA -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC 2023 LON – 003368
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
22 December 2023
Before:
Sam Grodzinski KC, Deputy High Court Judge
Between:
The King on the application of
EA
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Order
Following consideration of the Claim Form, the Acknowledgement of Service, the Claimant’s Reply, and the documents filed by the parties,
ORDER by Sam Grodzinski KC, Deputy High Court Judge
1. The Claimant’s name shall be anonymised and referred to in these proceedings as EA.
2. The Claimant is granted permission to rely on the Reply dated 12 December 2023.
3. Interim relief is granted: the Defendant shall forthwith take steps to provide (or facilitate the provision of) accommodation for the Claimant pursuant to s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, in South London, no more than one hour’s travelling distance from his brother.
4. By no later than 4pm on 4 January 2024, the Defendant shall file with the Court and serve on the Claimant a note explaining the delay in the provision of accommodation since the Defendant’s letter of 16 November 2023.
5. The case should thereafter be placed before a Judge for a decision on permission.
6. The Defendant has liberty to apply to discharge the order at paragraph 3 above, if so advised, on no less than 7 days’ notice in writing to the Claimant and his solicitors.
Reasons
1. The Claimant, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan, originally challenged the Defendant’s delay in determining his application for asylum support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. He has sought interim relief requiring the Defendant to accommodate him in South London. The Claim Form was received by the Court on 10 November 2023.
2. On 16 November 2023, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant, granting the s.95 application for subsistence and accommodation support. The letter also stated that having considered the Claimant’s circumstances, “the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is reasonable to authorise your request to be allocated accommodation within 1 hour’s travelling distance of your brother’s address. The accommodation provider has been advised of this requirement”. A further letter was sent in the same terms on 24 November, save that the final sentence of the paragraph quoted above now read “The accommodation provider will be advised of this requirement” (emphasis added).
3. The letters also advised the Claimant that because he was in “private accommodation”, he had to request this from an organisation called Migrant Help in order to be moved to s.95 accommodation, even though the Defendant had already agreed to such a move.
4. On 29 November, the Claimant’s solicitors contacted Migrant Help, asking for accommodation to be provided urgently, in line with the Defendant’s letters of 16 and 24 November.
5. On 4 December 2023, the Acknowledgement of Service was filed, stating that the Claimant had been granted section 95 asylum support and accommodation on 16 November, and that in these circumstances, the claim had become “entirely academic”.
6. On 8 December 2023, the Claimant’s solicitors Lawstop emailed the Court, stating that they were seeking to “narrow or resolve the issues in dispute””, and asking the Court to refrain from placing the papers before a Judge until noon on 12 December, to allow this process to conclude.
7. However despite several chasing emails from the Claimant’s solicitors, Lawstop, no positive steps appear to have been taken by the Defendant to actually provide the accommodation referred to in the letters of 16 and 24 November. Nor has the Court been told by GLD, on behalf of the Defendant, what if any progress is being made in this respect. The last email I have seen from GLD is dated 11 December 2023, stating that instructions were still being taken. That was around three weeks after the decision letter granting the s.95 application.
8. On 12 December, the Claimant filed a Reply (together with an application for permission to rely on it), referring to the matters set out above, and attaching the relevant correspondence.
9. Given the ongoing delay, and currently unexplained failure by the Defendant to provide the accommodation that it said would be forthcoming, I consider it appropriate to grant interim relief, and to make the directions set out above for the Defendant to explain the position to the Court and the Claimant, before a decision on permission is made.