Messaoud, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An applicant for immigration bail must provide a proposed bail address or explain why none is available. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 95, gives the Secretary of State a power to provide or arrange support for eligible destitute asylum seekers; it does not impose a general obligation to provide accommodation or a bail address. Any request for section 95 support must be made through the appropriate application process. A First-tier Tribunal order making bail conditional on an address being provided does not, without express terms, direct the Secretary of State to obtain accommodation.

The claimant, a Moroccan national subject to deportation proceedings, was detained and later granted immigration bail subject to provision of an approved address. He argued that the Secretary of State was required to provide accommodation under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and that the First-tier Tribunal’s conditional grant of bail implicitly directed her to find an address. The Secretary of State submitted that the responsibility to provide an address rested on the bail applicant and that the claimant had not made the appropriate section 95 application. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State owed a duty to provide a bail address.

1. The claim was refused. The detention remained lawful until the claimant’s release on bail on 8 May 2019.
2. Under rule 38 of the The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, a bail application must include the address where the applicant will reside if bail is granted, or the reason why no address is provided. The obligation therefore rests on the applicant.
3. Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 confers a power to provide or arrange support for asylum seekers or their dependants who appear destitute or likely to become destitute. It does not mandate the Secretary of State to provide accommodation generally or to provide a bail address in every bail application. The Secretary of State must, however, consider a properly made section 95 application.
4. The claimant’s earlier section 95 application had been refused while he was detained, on the basis that his essential living needs were being met. He did not appeal that decision and did not make a further section 95 application in connection with his bail application.
5. The First-tier Tribunal judge’s conditional grant of bail required an address to be provided and approved. It did not order or direct the Secretary of State to find accommodation. The claimant’s application for judicial review therefore had no merit.

The judgment describes an earlier First-tier Tribunal decision granting bail conditionally on an address being provided. No appeal from that decision is identified. The Administrative Court refused the judicial review claim.