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

The court considered systemic and individual judicial review challenges to the Home Office’s use of the former RAF base at Wethersfield for section 95/96 asylum accommodation and to the Allocation of asylum accommodation policy (versions 9–12). Key legal principles applied were the Tameside duty of reasonable inquiry in administrative decision-making; the statutory framework in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (sections 95–98 and Schedule 8) and related regulations; the public sector equality duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; and positive obligations under Article 4 ECHR (human trafficking) and Article 8 ECHR (private life).

The court rejected the broad systemic challenges to the allocations process and to the adequacy of Wethersfield accommodation, holding that the screening interview, the ASF1 process and the Large Sites monitoring arrangements (as described in evidence) were, on their face, capable of operating in a way compliant with the Tameside duty and the Allocation Policy. The court found that the earlier deficiencies identified in NB had been remedied in the questionnaire and ASF1 in use for Wethersfield.

However, the court found that version 11 of the Allocation Policy (as carried into version 12) was promulgated without a proper equality impact assessment in respect of the change that made certain vulnerable cohorts potentially suitable for large-site accommodation. That failure breached the PSED. The court dismissed systemic Article 4 (trafficking) and most Equality Act claims, but accepted individual claims that the Home Office had unlawfully accommodated particular claimants at Wethersfield in specified periods and had failed in the duty to make reasonable adjustments in one case.

Background and procedural posture

The defendant commenced use of Wethersfield as section 95/98 asylum accommodation in July 2023. Four linked judicial review claims were heard together, raising both systemic challenges to policy and process and individual challenges by four asylum-seeking claimants (TG, MN, HAA, MJ) to their accommodation and treatment at Wethersfield. The hearing was a first instance Administrative Court determination by Mr Justice Mould.

Nature of the claims and relief sought

• (i) Systemic relief: declarations and/or quashing of parts of the Allocation Policy and of the allocations process, arguing failure of Tameside duties, unlawfulness of policy versions (10–12), breach of Article 4 ECHR (trafficking), and breaches of PSED and duties under the Equality Act 2010.
• (ii) Individual relief: declarations that accommodation at Wethersfield was not adequate for individual claimants (section 95/96 IAA 1999), breaches of the Equality Act (reasonable adjustments) and, where argued, human rights relief under Articles 4 and 8.

Issues framed by the court

• Whether the allocations process and the screening/ASF1 system were Tameside-compliant and capable of reliably eliciting the information required to apply the Allocation Policy suitability criteria;
• whether Wethersfield accommodation was, as a matter of law, generally inadequate for the purposes of the IAA;
• whether version 11 (and 12) of the Allocation Policy was unlawful in terms or operation and whether the PSED was complied with when promulgating it;
• whether the policy in relation to potential victims of modern slavery (NRM and reasonable grounds decision) breached Article 4;
• whether the defendant breached the Equality Act (PSED and duties to make reasonable adjustments) and whether individual claimants were unlawfully accommodated or suffered discrimination; and
• whether Article 8 ECHR was engaged or breached in the individual cases.

Court’s reasoning

• On the systemic allocations process the judge accepted the Home Office evidence that the enhanced screening questionnaire (including Part 6), the ASF1 as completed on-site with Migrant Help, the NAAU sifting, the Interim Instruction and the Large Sites referral/monitoring procedures provide a system capable of securing the information reasonably required under the Tameside principle. The court distinguished NB on the facts: the screening and ASF1 had been revised and remedial steps taken.
• On overall adequacy of Wethersfield the court concluded that, taking account of relevant statutory constraints (eg room-sharing and location not being excluded factors under IAA), the accommodation as described was not shown to be inherently incapable of meeting asylum seekers’ essential living needs at subsistence level; the systemic challenge to general adequacy therefore failed.
• On version 11 of the Allocation Policy the court held the policy text and its operation (encouraging verifiable professional evidence to establish special needs) were in principle lawful and capable of lawful operation, leaving room for case-by-case and precautionary action. However, the court found a material, unlawful failure of the PSED because the equality impact assessment that ministers relied upon did not assess the equalities implications of the substantial policy change that made vulnerable cohorts potentially suitable for large-site accommodation.
• On Article 4 and NRM the court held that the Allocation Policy approach (that potential victims without a positive reasonable grounds decision may still be accommodated at Wethersfield, subject to suitability assessment and safeguarding) was not inconsistent with the positive protection duty in Rantsev/TDT or with statutory guidance; no systemic Article 4 breach was made out.
• On individual claims: TG, MN and HAA succeeded in their challenges under sections 95/96 in respect of the periods identified, because the Home Office failed to identify or act upon material information about their vulnerabilities in a timely way. TG also established a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments (Equality Act). MJ’s claim failed: the court concluded his mental deterioration at Wethersfield was an adjustment disorder that resolved after relocation and the defendant’s decision-making in January 2024 was, on the evidence and expert psychiatric advice then available to the Home Office, not irrational.

The claims are allowed in part. The court rejected most systemic challenges to the allocations process and to the adequacy of Wethersfield accommodation, concluding the screening, ASF1 and Large Sites procedures were capable of discharging the Tameside duty and that the accommodation was not inherently inadequate for subsistence-level needs. The court held, however, that version 11 (carried into version 12) of the Allocation Policy was promulgated in breach of the PSED because the equality impact assessment did not examine the equalities implications of the policy change making some vulnerable cohorts potentially suitable for large-site accommodation. Individually, TG, MN and HAA succeeded in showing that they were unlawfully accommodated at Wethersfield for the periods identified and TG also established a breach of the Equality Act reasonable adjustment duty; MJ’s individual claim failed because the Home Office’s decisions were reasonably supported by the contemporaneous evidence and advice available to it.