Morris, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council

For the purposes of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, a person subject to immigration control is within the class of persons from abroad who are ineligible for housing assistance. Section 185(4) therefore requires that person to be disregarded when determining whether another person has a priority need for accommodation. The distinction between section 185(1) and section 185(2) does not create separate categories of ineligible persons. Where a possible declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 arises, the Crown must receive the prescribed notice before the court determines the substantive discrimination and compatibility issues.

The claimant, a British citizen, was homeless and the sole carer of her two-year-old daughter, who was a Mauritian citizen subject to immigration control. Westminster City Council accepted that the claimant was homeless and eligible for assistance but decided that she lacked a priority need because section 185(4) required her daughter to be disregarded. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that section 185(4) did not apply to persons falling within section 185(2), and alternatively that the provision was incompatible with Convention rights. The issues were the proper construction of section 185(4), the possible application of sections 3 and 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the procedural requirement to notify the Crown.

1. The claimant’s daughter was a person from abroad who was ineligible for housing assistance within section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996. Section 185(1) stated the governing principle. Section 185(2) identified one class falling within the phrase “ineligible for housing assistance”, while section 185(3) concerned other descriptions of persons to be treated in the same way.
2. The word “other” in section 185(3), together with the statutory scheme and heading, confirmed that persons subject to immigration control under section 185(2) were treated as persons from abroad who were ineligible for housing assistance. The Homelessness (England) Regulations 2000 provided contextual support, although the regulations’ draftsman’s understanding was not a legitimate aid to statutory construction.
3. The comparison with Part VI and the definition of “eligible for assistance” did not alter that conclusion. Section 185(4) operated when determining another person’s homelessness or priority need and was not limited by the separate statutory treatment of dependant children.
4. The court had not formed a concluded view on the alleged discrimination under Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR or on whether section 185(4) could be read compatibly under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. A declaration of incompatibility could not presently be made because the notice required by CPR 19.4A(1) had not been given.
5. Further consideration of the judicial review claim was adjourned. The court directed that the requisite notice be given to the Crown in accordance with CPR 19.4A(1) and paragraph 6 of the relevant Practice Direction.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment records that permission was initially refused by Jackson J. and later granted by Collins J.; no prior substantive decision in the claim is stated.