Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
High Court rules against government on no recourse to public funds
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
The High Court has ruled that the government must make it easier for migrants to access the welfare system if they are about to become destitute. In an oral ruling delivered this morning, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Chamberlain found that Home Office policy on no recourse to public funds is in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Deighton Pierce Glynn, representing the family who took the case, say that “a detailed judgment and order will follow, which will set out the steps the Home Office needs to take to comply with the judges’ ruling”.
Amanda Weston QC, acting for the charity Project 17 (which intervened in support of the family), says that the case concerns the default no recourse condition imposed on migrants on a ten-year route to settlement. According to the oral judgment, caseworkers will in future have to lift the condition when the person “is not currently destitute but will imminently become so without access to public funds”. The court made clear that the Home Office will still be able to impose the no resource condition “in the normal run of cases”.
The no recourse to public funds issue has become particularly pressing during the coronavirus pandemic, which has seen many migrants thrown out of work and unable to get benefits. But the judges said they were not ordering any immediate change to Home Office policy. The court will decide on the exact terms of the order at a later date.