Blackwood, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A dispersal policy must be applied with regard to the individual circumstances of each case. Exceptional circumstances, including established social support, family relationships, psychological vulnerability and the welfare of a child, may require departure from the general policy.

Article 8 protects private and family life, including physical and psychological integrity. A decision which is irrational at common law or disproportionate in its effect on those interests is unlawful. The availability of professional support after dispersal does not answer evidence that dispersal itself would cause significant psychological harm.

The claimant, a Jamaican national brought to the United Kingdom as a child, sought judicial review of decisions by the National Asylum Support Service requiring her to accept accommodation under the dispersal policy rather than continuing to receive support in her London council flat.

She had lived in London since childhood, had a young child, fragile family connections and established support from friends and a prayer group. A later psychological report indicated that dispersal would damage her mental state and affect her child. The central issues were whether the decision failed to take account of exceptional circumstances and whether dispersal would breach Article 8.

1. Application succeeded. The NASS decisions were quashed and NASS was directed to reconsider whether the dispersal policy should apply. Costs were awarded and leave to appeal was refused.
2. The dispersal policy was supported by section 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, but the existence of a general policy did not remove the duty to consider individual circumstances. The policy guidance required attention to matters including family ties, special needs and the likely impact of dispersal.
3. This was an exceptional case. The claimant had lived in London since childhood, had established roots and support there, was caring for a young child, was attempting to rebuild a relationship with her mother and had been unable to work or maintain her rent because of uncertainty about her immigration status. The decision-maker failed to engage rationally with those matters by reducing the support available to her to three friends.
4. Article 8 extends beyond family life. It includes respect for private life and the physical and psychological integrity of the individual. The child’s interests also required consideration. The psychological report provided strong evidence that dispersal would worsen the claimant’s depression, increase her need for social and mental-health services and adversely affect the child.
5. The response that suitable professional services would be available after dispersal missed the substance of the evidence. The relevant issue was the harmful effect of removing the claimant from her existing support network, not merely whether replacement services could later be accessed. The reasoning in R(Hetoja) v Secretary of State was distinguishable because there was no comparable evidence of compromised physical or psychological integrity in that case.
6. The court did not order payment of the rent or impose a timetable for deciding the claimant’s immigration application. Those matters remained for the responsible authorities, subject to reconsideration using the correct legal tests.