Success in Major Systemic Challenge

This morning (14 December 2020) Mr Justice Robin Knowles handed down judgment in the combined cases of R (DMA & AA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which it was found that the failure to monitor the implementation of the contracts awarded to private companies for the provision of s.4 accommodation to failed asylum seekers, in circumstances where there is evidence of widespread unlawful delays in the provision of such accommodation, is contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

The five Claimants were destitute failed asylum seekers who were each, the Secretary of State had accepted, entitled to accommodation and financial support under s.4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 so as to avoid inhuman and degrading treatment. However, the Claimants were not provided with this accommodation for a considerable period (ranging from weeks to months in the various cases). None of the Claimants actually became street homeless during this time, but they had a precarious existence depending on modest ad hoc assistance from charities, the church, well-wishers etc.

In such circumstances it was held that the Secretary of State had breached her duty under s.4 of the 1999 Act in failing to provide accommodation to the Claimants within a reasonable period of time.

It was also held that the Secretary of State's failure to monitor the timeliness of the provision of s.4 accommodation under the various private contracts she has entered to discharge her duty is contrary to s.6 HRA read with Article 3. In so doing, the court reiterated the principle from R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 1 AC 396 that where there is a "imminent prospect" that a person will endure treatment contrary to Article 3, s.6 HRA requires the State to act prospectively to avoid the breach.

In addition, the lack of monitoring of the provision of s.4 accommodation to people with disabilities was found to be contrary to the public sector equality duty.

Katherine Barnes (led by Alex Goodman) acted for the successful Claimants in the DMA case, instructed by Polly Glynn of Deighton Pierce Glynn.

The judgment is available here.