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

National security and absconding risks remain important when accommodation is provided to a person released on immigration bail. They do not permit the Secretary of State to disregard compelling medical evidence that accommodation is materially harming the person’s health.

Once such evidence is available, the Secretary of State must reconsider the accommodation and act with reasonable expedition. Future decisions must consider an up-to-date expert assessment of the individual’s condition and the likely effects of relocation.

The claimant, an Algerian national released on stringent SIAC bail conditions, was required to live in Bedford accommodation. He challenged the Secretary of State’s refusal to reconsider relocation to London, relying on an unpublished accommodation policy and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

After permission was granted on medical evidence describing serious deterioration caused by social isolation, the Secretary of State arranged relocation to North London. The claim continued because the claimant sought damages and challenged the delay and the possibility of future relocation outside London.

1. The Secretary of State’s position before receiving Professor Kopelman’s report was neither a breach of the unpublished policy nor a disproportionate interference with article 8. Mere assertions that the claimant’s health was worsening, without convincing medical support, were insufficient.
2. The report constituted compelling fresh evidence of the claimant’s particular condition in Bedford. The Secretary of State should have recognised that it supported relocation to London, rather than treating relocation anywhere in the South East as sufficient.
3. Failure to recognise the report, combined with a lack of expedition in securing alternative accommodation, caused an unnecessary delay of about two months. The claimant was awarded £500 damages.
4. Any future decision to move the claimant must take account of an up-to-date expert assessment of his physical and psychological condition and the likely impact of the proposed move. The assessment must be sufficiently expert and may be obtained jointly or separately.
5. These observations were confined to the claimant’s exceptional circumstances and did not establish a general entitlement for SIAC bailees to secure relocation.