R (NB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This judicial review concerned the Home Secretary's decision to accommodate asylum seekers in Napier Barracks and challenged the adequacy and lawfulness of that accommodation under section 95 and 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Reception Conditions Directive (RCD) as implemented in domestic law, and the defendant’s contractual and administrative arrangements (the AASSC). The claimants advanced four principal grounds: (1) the Barracks failed to meet the minimum standards required by the RCD and/or the AASSC; (2) the Home Office’s system for screening and monitoring suitability (including compliance with the Tameside duty) was defective; (3) human rights claims under Articles 2, 3 and 8 were engaged; and (4) periods of enforced restriction of movement amounted to false imprisonment and/or deprivation of liberty under Article 5.

The court found that the Barracks’ conditions (including dormitory accommodation, limited ventilation, shared facilities, the decision to depart from Public Health England advice on cohorting, and serious fire-safety shortcomings identified by the Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate) meant the accommodation did not ensure a standard of living adequate for the claimants' health and so failed the minimum content of the Reception Conditions Directive; the Secretary of State’s conclusion that the accommodation was adequate was irrational (Ground 1). The court also found the allocation and post-transfer monitoring arrangements fell below the reasonable standard required by Tameside: suitability criteria existed but they were not effectively applied and on-site staff were insufficiently trained or informed to identify vulnerabilities (Ground 2). The Article 2 and 3 claims were dismissed on the facts (the threshold for life‑threatening or inhuman/degrading treatment was not met), and Article 8 claims failed. The court held, however, that the written instruction of 15 January 2021, and its practical effect during the outbreak period, deprived residents of liberty and therefore allowed in part the claims based on false imprisonment/Article 5 (Ground 4).

Background and parties. The claimants were six adult male asylum seekers accommodated at Napier Barracks, a former military site used by the Home Office and managed by Clearsprings Ready Homes Ltd. The Home Office placed residents in dormitory-style accommodation despite Public Health England advice that dormitories were not suitable in the pandemic and despite known fire-safety concerns later identified by the Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate. Numbers rose to over 400. A Covid-19 outbreak occurred in mid-January 2021 and a fire and disturbance followed on 29 January 2021. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration / Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP/ICIBI) subsequently inspected and produced a highly critical report.

Procedural posture and relief sought. These were first instance judicial review claims (permission granted) seeking declaratory relief and damages. The claimants advanced four grounds: (i) incompatibility of the accommodation with section 96 IAA 1999 read with the Reception Conditions Directive and with the AASSC; (ii) unlawful and flawed suitability selection and monitoring processes (Tameside duty and equality considerations); (iii) breaches of Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR; and (iv) false imprisonment and/or Article 5 breaches arising from an alleged curfew and, subsequently, an instruction not to leave the site (the 15 January 2021 letter), and particular incidents of detention.

Issues framed by the court. The court framed the decisive issues as: whether the accommodation met the minimum standards required by the RCD and domestic law; whether the Home Office had a rational, Tameside-compliant process to identify and protect those for whom the Barracks were unsuitable and to monitor residents post-transfer; whether the Article 2/3/8 thresholds were reached; and whether the written and practical instructions during the outbreak amounted to detention/ deprivation of liberty.

Court’s reasoning and findings. The court held that the Reception Conditions Directive’s minimum standard (a standard of living adequate for health and subsistence) continued to inform domestic obligations and that this requirement applied to housing provided under section 96 IAA 1999. Taking into account (a) the PHE advice that dormitories were not suitable and required cohorting/isolation measures if used, (b) the Home Office’s failure to implement PHE’s key protective measures (notably cohorting to very small bubbles, feasible isolation facilities and testing/quarantine arrangements), (c) the HMCIP and CPFSI findings (serious fire risks and systemic management failings), the court concluded the accommodation was not adequate for the claimants’ health and needs; any contrary view was irrational (Ground 1). The court also held that the Home Office’s suitability assessment process (earlier truncated screening interviews, the limitations of the ASF1 as a screening tool, late introduction of targeted questions, lack of effective use of the PIQ, poor on-site awareness and training, and inadequate multi-agency safeguarding arrangements) failed the Tameside duty: the Secretary of State did not take reasonable steps to be sufficiently informed before making or maintaining placement decisions and to monitor residents thereafter (Ground 2).

The Article 2 and 3 claims were considered but dismissed: although the risks from Covid-19 and fire were real, they did not reach the high threshold for positive Article 2 liability or the minimum level of severity for Article 3 on the facts of these claimants. Article 8 claims also failed because the facts did not show an interference of the necessary character with privacy beyond the Article 3 analysis. On Ground 4 the court accepted that the 15 January 2021 written instruction (and its practical effect during the outbreak) went beyond lawful advice and, combined with a police/security presence and threats of enforcement, had the effect of depriving the claimants of their liberty; the court therefore allowed the claim in part for false imprisonment/Article 5 with respect to the lockdown period following that instruction. Other specific detention allegations were rejected on the factual evidence.

Relief and practical outcome. Claims succeeded on Grounds 1 and 2; Article 2/3/8 claims were dismissed; Ground 4 succeeded in part (post-15 January deprivation of liberty). The court directed the parties to agree declarations and directions for quantifying damages.

This is a first-instance judgment. The court allowed the claims on Grounds 1 and 2 and allowed in part Ground 4, but dismissed the remaining human-rights arguments. Rationale: (1) the Barracks accommodation did not meet the minimum content of the Reception Conditions Directive or the statutory standard under sections 95/96 IAA 1999 given the pandemic and fire-safety realities, and the Secretary of State’s view that it was adequate was irrational; (2) the Home Office’s system for identifying and monitoring suitability was not Tameside-compliant and failed to protect vulnerable asylum seekers; (3) the threshold for positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3 and for an Article 8 breach was not made out on the facts; (4) the 15 January 2021 instruction and its practical enforcement during the outbreak had the effect of depriving residents of their liberty, so claims based on false imprisonment/Article 5 succeeded in part. The court dismissed other detention allegations on the evidence.