Satu v London Borough Of Hackney & Anor

Section 95(13) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 does not exhaustively limit the powers conferred by Schedule 9. An interim asylum-support scheme may continue after the permanent scheme comes into force, allowing an orderly, staged transition. The two schemes may operate in parallel. A local authority applying regulation 5 of the interim regulations must make its own assessment of adequate accommodation and essential living needs. It is not required automatically to adopt rates payable under the NASS scheme. Its decision remains unlawful if the assessment is irrational.

Camara Satu, an asylum-seeker, received support from Hackney under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999. She challenged Hackney’s decision to provide financial support at a lower rate than that paid by NASS. The Divisional Court held that Hackney was not required to pay NASS rates and dismissed the claim.

On appeal, permission was granted on a new argument that the interim regulations, and their extension by the 2002 amendment regulations, were ultra vires the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The appeal also revisited the rate of support issue. The central questions were whether Schedule 9 support could continue after section 95 came into force and whether NASS rates governed Hackney’s assessment.

Lord Justice Keene delivered the leading judgment. Lords Justices Kay and Simon Brown agreed.

1. Statutory construction. A schedule is as much part of an Act as any other enactment. Its position in the statute does not make it subordinate to provisions in the body of the Act. The Act must be read as a whole so that Parliament’s intention is given effect.
2. Interim support scheme. Section 95(13) was a general summary of the function of Schedule 9, rather than an exhaustive limit on the powers conferred by paragraph 15. Paragraph 15 therefore permitted the Secretary of State to prescribe an interim period ending after section 95 came into force. The interim scheme was not intended to end before the permanent scheme existed, leaving destitute asylum-seekers to rely on general assistance legislation.
3. Practical construction. Where statutory language is ambiguous, the construction that makes practical sense and causes least inconvenience should be preferred. The parallel operation of the schemes enabled the substantial transfer of supported asylum-seekers to NASS to occur in an orderly and staged manner. The principle was supported by The River Wear Commissioners v Adamson (1877) 2 AC 743 and Shannon Realties v Ville de St Michel (1924) AC 185.
4. Support rates. Regulation 5 entrusted Hackney with assessing what appeared to provide adequate accommodation and essential living needs. Hackney had to make its own assessment. The NASS regulations and rates did not automatically govern the interim scheme. There was no evidence that Hackney’s decision was irrational.

The interim regulations and the amendment regulations were intra vires. The appeal was dismissed and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 1843, the appeal was dismissed. The interim regulations and their amendment were held intra vires, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: The Divisional Court, comprising Kennedy LJ and Nelson J, held that Hackney was not required to pay NASS rates and dismissed the judicial-review claim.