ETO and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionOrder

Claim number: AC-2022-LON-001645

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

31 July 2024

Before:

Collins Rice J, sitting as a Judge of both the High Court and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Between:

The King on the Application of
(1) ETO (AC-2022-LON-001645)
(2) AA (AC-2022-LON-001645)
(3) AMM (AC-2022-LON-002112)
(4) YJW (AC-2022-LON-002088)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Consent order

HAVING REGARD TO the requirements of paragraph 17.1 of the Practice Direction 54A to Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the parties agreeing a Statement of matters relied on

UPON the claim of SM & Others v SSHD (AC-2024-LON-001789) having since been settled by consent order dated 11 July 2024

AND UPON a directions hearing having taken place in the case of AMX & Others before Collins Rice J, sitting as a Judge of both the High Court and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 28 June 2024, which was subsequently adjourned to 19 July 2024 pending the consideration by the parties of further case management directions

AND UPON the Defendant i) withdrawing the Claimants’ Notice of Intent letters and ii) confirming that she will make a substantive decision on the merits of the asylum claims of the Claimants, and iii) that the Claimants will be treated as having joined the UK asylum system on the date the Claimants first claimed asylum and will have their asylum claims processed under the Asylum decision making prioritisation Guidance

AND UPON the Defendant confirming that all of the MEDP cohort will have the merits of their substantive asylum claims determined in the UK

AND UPON the Court in AMX indicating the desirability that all parties that have similar claims/challenge the same policy and practice as AMX, including (i) all those that were at the 28 June hearing; (ii) all those parties with similar claims who may already have agreed proposed forms of consent order and (iii) any other parties of which the Defendant is aware, should seek to propose to the court a form of order by consent (or, where an existing form of order for settlement has already been proposed to the court, to propose a new form of order by consent) on the same terms as those set out in the AMX draft order at paragraphs 1- 4 by making a short informal application (absent exceptional circumstances) by midday on 25th July 2024 to the Court.

BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The Claimants have leave to withdraw their claims for judicial review.
  2. The hearing listed for 30 July 2024 is vacated.
  3. The Defendant to pay the Claimant’s reasonable costs on the standard basis to be determined by detailed assessment if not agreed.
  4. The court will make an order for a payment on account of costs in favour of the Claimants pursuant to CPR 44.2(8) and gives directions at (i)-(iii) below for the determination of the amount. Pursuant to CPR PD 44 (9.8), the court shall not make a summary assessment of the Claimants’ costs.
    i) The Claimant will serve on the Defendant a schedule of costs (using Form N260) by 4pm on 16 October 2024.
    ii) The Defendant may serve comments on the schedule within 28 days of receipt.
    iii) In default of agreement as to the payment on account of costs within 14 days thereafter, the Claimant shall file the schedule and comments at court, and the court will consider the schedules and comments without a hearing and will direct the amount of the payment on account and the date by which it must be made.
  5. To the extent necessary, there be a detailed assessment of the Claimants’ legally aided costs.
  6. The Claimants’ damages claim shall be stayed for six months for the parties to explore settlement. If, at the end of that period, any of the claims have not settled, those claims shall be transferred to the Central London County Court pursuant to CPR 54.20.
  7. The directions at paragraphs 2-14 of the order of the Court in this claim dated 5th July 2024 are discharged.

Statement of matters pursuant to PD 54A Para 17

  1. In this claim for judicial review the Claimants challenged the Defendant’s continued application to their cases of the asylum inadmissibility guidance and the associated procedure by which their asylum claims may be deemed inadmissible for consideration in the UK and action taken to remove them to a third country without determination of their refugee status. 
  2. The Migration and Economic Development Partnership (“MEDP”) was entered into between the UK and Rwanda on 13 April 2022 and from around mid-May 2022 the SSHD began to issue notices of intent (NOIs) to asylum seekers where there was evidence that the individual had arrived in the UK by way of a dangerous journey and had been present in or had a connection with a safe third country.
  3. The Claimants’ challenge arose from the application of the MEDP and their status as victims of trafficking. The claim maintains that the Defendant is subject to absolute and non-derogable duties arising under domestic statute and international law to identify, protect, and provide support and assistance to, victims of trafficking and that these duties give primacy to the needs of victims of trafficking which cannot be overridden by the discretion in paragraphs 345A-D Immigration Rules to pursue inadmissibility action.
  4. Following the general election and the change of government the SSHD has been giving careful consideration as to how to manage the MEDP cohort.  She has confirmed that all of that cohort will have the merits of their asylum claims substantively determined in the UK. 
  5. The SSHD has agreed to treat the Claimants (and all others from the MEDP cohort) as having joined the UK asylum system on the date when they first claimed asylum.  In practice that means that their claims will be dealt with as a priority and, in general and with a view to fairness overall, will be prioritised ahead of any cases where asylum was claimed on a later date. The SSHD operates guidance in the form of the ‘Asylum decision making prioritisation guidance’ dated 11 October 2023[1] which makes clear that exceptional cases will be prioritised including those involving e.g. serious physical or mental health problems. In those circumstances, there are measures in place which will ensure that cases in the MEDP cohort are prioritised within the asylum system.
  6. The Defendant has agreed to pay the Claimants’ reasonable costs to be assessed on the standard basis.
  7. By reason of the above the principal relief sought by the Claimant has been secured and the parties therefore propose that pursuant to paragraph 17.2 to PD54A the Court make the order in the terms proposed.
  8. For these reasons the Court is asked to approve the terms of this order.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-decision-making-prioritisation-caseworker-guidance/asylum-decision-making-prioritisation-accessible