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

A public authority responsible for immigration bail accommodation must operate clear and effective arrangements for identifying potential care and support needs and, where appropriate, referring the person to a local authority. That obligation arose from the public law duty of adherence to policy, the Secretary of State’s stated equivalence policy and the ordinary duty to act reasonably.

The Secretary of State also breached the Public Sector Equality Duty and the reasonable-adjustments duty by failing to monitor the provision of accommodation to disabled persons and to operate an effective system for prioritising complex cases. Individual accommodation must be assessed reasonably and objectively. Accommodation may nevertheless be lawful where a prompt response follows a change in circumstances, but prolonged retention in unsuitable accommodation may breach statutory accommodation and equality duties.

The claimant, a foreign national offender with physical and mental disabilities, was granted immigration bail subject to residence in accommodation arranged by the Secretary of State under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. He was released from immigration detention to Home Office bail accommodation and later moved between shared properties.

He challenged the Secretary of State’s systems and decisions concerning safe release, care and support referrals, accommodation suitability, equality duties and Convention rights. The claim also concerned whether the issues were academic and whether some matters required transfer to the King’s Bench Division for a damages trial.

The central questions were whether the Secretary of State had lawful systems for identifying and referring potential Care Act needs, whether the claimant’s accommodation and release planning complied with policy and statutory duties, and whether the arrangements engaged Articles 2, 3 or 8 ECHR.

1. Outcome. The judicial review succeeded on the policy-gap, individual care-and-support liaison, Public Sector Equality Duty and reasonable-adjustments issues. It also succeeded in relation to the failure to move the claimant from Rokeby Gardens between 6 November and 22 December 2023. The claim was dismissed on the remaining issues.
2. The Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to have a written policy or clear instruction requiring decision-makers to identify potential care and support needs and consider anticipatory referral to a local authority. The unlawfulness lay in the vacuum, rather than in the absence of one prescribed form of policy. Clear and effective instructions could suffice, although transparency was important.
3. In the claimant’s case, DSO 08/2016, read with the stated equivalence policy, required the relevant caseworkers to address potential care and support needs, an expedited multidisciplinary meeting and anticipatory local-authority referral. Failure even to consider or arrange those matters was an Adherence breach and unreasonable.
4. The Secretary of State breached the Public Sector Equality Duty by failing to collect and monitor data concerning disabled persons receiving Home Office bail accommodation. The absence of monitoring, together with the absence of an effective prioritisation system, also breached the reasonable-adjustments duty under the Equality Act 2010.
5. The accommodation-level provisions in Immigration Bail Interim Guidance were descriptive rather than an absolute entitlement to Level 3 accommodation. A Harm Case could lawfully receive initial accommodation where that was reasonably assessed as the suitable least-worst option, including where the accommodation provided step-free access.
6. There was no breach concerning medication planning, seizure support or the initial provision of Willow Lane. The Secretary of State acted within the law by moving the claimant from Willow Lane within a reasonable period after the stair risk became known.
7. Rokeby Gardens was initially selected in good faith and appeared suitable. Once local professionals identified the stair configuration as unsafe and the claimant’s discharge was delayed, urgent action was required. From 6 November 2023, the continuing failure to transfer him breached the Schedule 10 accommodation duty, the reasonable-adjustments duty and section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. It also breached an existing court order.
8. The arrangements did not breach the Article 2 or Article 3 Systems Duty or Operational Duty, the substantive Article 3 right or Article 8. The court distinguished a real risk of delay in meeting care needs from a real risk of death or treatment crossing the Article 3 severity threshold.
9. The court ordered declarations, mandatory monitoring and equality-impact-assessment measures, liberty to apply concerning deadlines, and payment of 85% of the claimant’s costs.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The claimant’s application for permission to appeal was refused under CPR 52.6(1)(a) and (b).