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

In deciding interim relief, the court must strike the balance of justice protectively where a highly vulnerable person may otherwise lose access to essential accommodation, treatment and support. Necessary travel expenses may require provision beyond a subsistence allowance where they relate to identified needs, including supervised medication, healthcare appointments and essential emotional support. The court may make a short-term protective order where the evidence establishes a triable issue but is too recent or incomplete for an enduring decision. Procedural fairness requires allowing both parties an opportunity to provide concrete evidence before resolving disputed questions about the location and timing of accommodation.

The claimant, a recognised victim of trafficking and highly vulnerable person, brought judicial review proceedings after the defendant refused support under the asylum-related provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Cheema-Grubb J ordered accommodation to be provided pending a return hearing. The defendant subsequently agreed to provide accommodation under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, making the continuing interim position the subject of dispute.

At this hearing, the issues narrowed to the form and location of accommodation, the continuation of an £8 weekly subsistence payment, and provision for travel expenses connected with the claimant’s treatment and support. The central question was how the balance of justice should be struck pending a better-informed hearing.

1. Interim relief continued. The claim raised a triable issue, although it was unnecessary at this stage to determine the underlying judicial review grounds. The court therefore had to decide what protective arrangement best addressed the balance of justice until the further hearing.
2. The claimant’s vulnerability and the evidence before the court established four matters which had to be treated as needs for interim purposes: daily attendance at a pharmacist supervising medication; monthly keyworker appointments; attendance at hospital appointments for Hepatitis C treatment; and occasional visits to a supportive friend. Travel and other expenses for those matters had to be provided separately from the £8 weekly subsistence payment.
3. The court adopted a protective approach directed to preventing an important need from falling between the cracks. The evidence showed a strong case for continuity of treatment and support in London, but it was recent and did not yet establish conclusively whether equivalent arrangements could be replicated elsewhere.
4. A more enduring order would have been unfair without a concrete picture from both sides. The claimant required a further opportunity to give evidence about her needs and the geographical consequences of relocation. The defendant required time to explain how accommodation outside London would meet those needs and vulnerabilities.
5. Accordingly, until further order, the defendant had to accommodate the claimant at an address in London, either by continuing the existing hotel accommodation or by providing stage two accommodation under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. The defendant also had to fund the four identified categories of travel. A further interim-relief hearing was directed for 13 January 2021, and costs were reserved.

The judgment records an earlier interim order made by Cheema-Grubb J on 11 December 2020 requiring the defendant to accommodate the claimant. This court continued and varied the interim protection pending a further hearing.