TG & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Secretary of State’s asylum-accommodation system is lawful if it is capable of gathering the information reasonably required to assess suitability and continuing suitability, applying the published criteria. The statutory standard is subsistence accommodation meeting essential living needs and individual vulnerabilities. Room sharing, rural location and temporary accommodation are not inherently unlawful.

A policy is unlawful only where it states the law incorrectly, presents a materially misleading account, or imposes requirements which make a material and identifiable number of unlawful decisions inevitable. The anticipatory reasonable-adjustments duty may be discharged by a policy providing alternative accommodation where a disabled person’s special needs cannot be met on site. The public sector equality duty nevertheless required a proper equality assessment before a significant policy change.

Four asylum seekers challenged the Secretary of State’s decisions to accommodate them at Wethersfield, a former RAF site, under sections 95 and 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. They advanced systemic challenges to the allocation process, accommodation conditions, Allocation Policy, equality duties and article 4 of the ECHR, together with individual challenges concerning their vulnerabilities, mental health and alleged racial harassment.

The claims were heard together as linked lead claims. The court considered whether the allocation system was Tameside-compliant, whether Wethersfield was generally adequate, whether versions 10 to 12 of the Allocation Policy were lawful, and whether the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in the individual cases.

1. Systemic allocation process. The current screening questionnaire, ASF1 form, allocation procedures and monitoring arrangements were capable of gathering the information reasonably required for decisions under sections 95, 96 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The claims based on Tameside therefore failed. The court distinguished the factual deficiencies identified in NB.
2. Adequacy of Wethersfield. The statutory standard was subsistence accommodation meeting essential living needs and providing a reasonably dignified existence consistent with individual needs. Room sharing, rural location, security arrangements, communal facilities and temporary accommodation did not make the site inherently inadequate. The systemic challenge failed.
3. Allocation Policy. The guidance requiring applicants to provide evidence of special needs was consistent with regulation 4 of the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005. It did not unlawfully displace the duty of reasonable inquiry or impose an inflexible evidential requirement. Versions 10 to 12 were not unlawful in their terms or operation.
4. Public sector equality duty. The equality impact assessment failed to assess the significant change introduced by version 11, under which disabled or mentally impaired asylum seekers might be considered suitable for Wethersfield if their needs could be met there. This was a clear failure to comply with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Ground 3(c) succeeded.
5. Reasonable adjustments and trafficking. The policy could discharge the anticipatory reasonable-adjustments duty by excluding disabled persons whose needs could not be met at Wethersfield. The policy permitting potential trafficking victims to remain suitable before a positive reasonable-grounds decision was consistent with the article 4 protection duty and statutory modern-slavery guidance.
6. Individual claims. TG succeeded because the Secretary of State overlooked credible evidence of trafficking and failed to apply version 9 of the Allocation Policy. MN succeeded because the Secretary of State failed promptly to review his suitability after receiving a clinical psychologist’s individual evaluation. HAA succeeded because powerful safeguarding and mental-health evidence was not properly considered. TG also succeeded under section 29(7) of the Equality Act 2010. MN and HAA did not establish the requisite long-term disability. MJ’s claim failed.
7. Disposition. The claimants succeeded on ground 3(c). TG, MN and HAA succeeded on ground 2, and TG also on ground 4. All other grounds, including MJ’s claim, failed. The parties were invited to make submissions on the form of order.