Migrants’ Rights Network, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department

A judicial review challenging intensified, sector-focused immigration enforcement requires a sufficiently defined policy or practice. Existing equality impact assessments may satisfy the public sector equality duty where the challenged intensification increases resources but does not fundamentally alter the nature of the equality impacts previously assessed. Under indirect discrimination law, the Secretary of State must justify any disparate impact, but the court must accord a significant measure of respect to the executive assessment of proportionality in immigration control. Identifying sectors through intelligence as prone to illegal working may be proportionate even where those sectors contain disproportionate numbers of persons sharing protected characteristics. The absence of illegal-working findings at every enforcement visit does not establish that the policy is ineffective.

The claimant charity sought permission to challenge the Secretary of State’s policy and practice of intensifying immigration enforcement raids and targeting specified business sectors. It alleged indirect discrimination contrary to Equality Act 2010, sections 19 and 29, and failure to comply with the public sector equality duty under section 149.

The Secretary of State argued that the claim lacked a defined target, that the earlier operation had ceased, and that the sectoral approach was both adequately assessed and proportionate. The court considered whether the challenge was arguable, whether further equality assessment was required, and whether the alleged disparate impacts could be justified.

1. Target of claim. The July 2024 intensification of immigration enforcement and identification of car washes, nail bars and beauty salons as targets constituted an arguable and sufficiently defined policy or practice. The proposed amendment concerning later-targeted sectors was also granted, subject to arguability.
2. Public sector equality duty. The existing equality impact assessments had considered disability, race and sex. They recognised possible disparate impacts and addressed operational safeguards for disabled persons. The July 2024 policy increased resources but did not fundamentally change the nature of those impacts. The selection of additional sectors followed the intelligence-led approach already identified in the Illegal Working Strategy. Separate assessment was therefore not arguably required under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
3. Indirect discrimination. The court did not decide whether disproportionate representation of women or persons of particular nationalities or races within targeted sectors would itself establish particular disadvantage under section 19. Even assuming that it could, the Secretary of State had a plainly legitimate aim: maintaining the integrity of immigration control. The court accorded significant respect to her judgment that intensified enforcement was required and that the adverse impacts were proportionate, applying the approach described in Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2025] UKSC 30.
4. The evidence that individual visits produced modest results did not show that the policy was ineffective. Enforcement visits could deter illegal working and the figures did not establish general ineffectiveness.
5. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused.