AA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interim relief in judicial review requires a serious issue to be tried and a balance of convenience and justice favouring relief. In accommodation cases under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, it is strongly arguable that relevant accommodation and healthcare policies must be considered together where they bear on the decision. The decision-maker must consider all the circumstances, the individual’s needs, the cumulative interaction of those matters and the position in the round. A court must respect the defendant’s role as primary decision-maker and its decision-making latitude, but may grant mandatory interim relief where the evidence decisively favours it. Where the defendant has filed grounds addressing both interim relief and permission, the court may determine permission at the same hearing in the interests of justice and the overriding objective.

The claimant, an immigration applicant accommodated under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, sought interim relief requiring suitable accommodation in the Leeds area. He relied on medical, mobility, mental-health, social-support and family-support needs said to have been disrupted by dispersal to Tyne and Wear.

The defendant disputed arguability and contended that the balance of convenience favoured refusal. The court considered the relevance of the Home Office accommodation and healthcare policies, in light of IO v SSHD [2020] EWHC 3420 (Admin). The issues were whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether interim relief should be granted, and whether permission for judicial review should be determined immediately.

1. Interim relief. The court applied the familiar test: a serious issue to be tried and a balance of convenience and justice supporting relief. The claim was strongly arguable because the defendant may have applied the policy guidance unlawfully, acted unreasonably or unjustifiably, and given inadequate reasons (paras 5, 7–8).
2. Policy guidance. It was strongly arguable that the Allocation of Accommodation Policy and the Healthcare Needs and Pregnancy Dispersal Policy Guidance were relevant to a Schedule 10 decision. The documents were designed to be read together in the context of accommodation provision. It was also strongly arguable that a “not medically essential” criterion was insufficient, and that the defendant had to consider all the circumstances, individual needs, cumulative interrelationship and the position in the round (para 7).
3. Balance of convenience and justice. The decisive considerations included disrupted continuity of medical care and social support, loss of practical family and friendship assistance, serious mobility and isolation difficulties, and the absence of evidence that Leeds accommodation could not be provided (paras 9–15). The court nevertheless recognised that the defendant remained the primary decision-maker, with appropriate latitude, and that courts should be cautious before mandating accommodation in a particular area (para 16).
4. Orders. Interim relief was granted. The defendant was ordered to provide suitable accommodation in Leeds by 4 pm on 29 June 2021 under Schedule 10. Costs of the interim-relief application were reserved, and permission for judicial review was granted, with permission costs in the case and liberty to apply for further directions (paras 17–21).
5. The court held that, where the acknowledgement of service and summary grounds address permission as well as interim relief, it may determine permission at the same hearing where doing so serves the overriding objective, the interests of justice and the public interest (para 20).