The judgment could mean the Home Office has to repeal a key plank of its controversial asylum policy and could have far-reaching implications for all rough sleepers.
The case related to section 55 of the 2002 Asylum and Immigration Act. Under this law, subsistence support can be withheld from asylum seekers who fail to claim asylum as soon as they arrive in the country.
The case was brought by three asylum seekers: Wayoka Limbuela, Binyam Tefera Tesema and Yusif Adam – all of whom are ineligible for state aid having fallen foul of section 55. The original case was heard in February this year and Justices Jacob, Laws and Carnworth ruled on the appeal on 21 May.
The Home Office has appealed again against the decision but, if it loses the appeal, it will be obliged to review section 55.
The decision is the first time that a British court has recognised "shelter of some form from the elements at night" as a "basic human amenity".
This could pave the way for other vulnerable homeless people sleeping on the streets to claim that their human rights have been breached.
If such a person were to bring a test case, their local authority could be forced to find housing for them.
According to ODPM estimates, there are more than 500 people sleeping rough in England and, according to one of the judges who heard the case, this number could be doubled by people left destitute by section 55.
Deborah Garvey, policy officer at homelessness charity Shelter, said: "We welcome this decision as we have always said that shelter should be a basic human right. This is not just a section 55 decision; it could have implications for other people sleeping on the street."
Shelter director Adam Sampson added: "This is a victory for very vulnerable people."
The Home Office and the Local Government Association declined to comment.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet