BLZ, R (on the application of) v Leeds City Council
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Judge | FORDHAM J |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin) |
| Date | 29 January 2025 |
| Year | 2025 |
| Counsel | Richardson,Jack Holborn,Matthew Howarth,Ella Grodzinski,Stephanie Harrison Kc,Grace Capel,Nadia O’mara,Isaac Ricca Richardson,David Lawson,Katherine Hampshire |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin)
Case No: AC-2023-LON-003699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
SITTING IN LONDON
Wednesday, 29 th
January 2025
Before:
FORDHAM J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING (on the application of BLZ) Claimant
- and -
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL
- and –
(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(2) THE SECOND LOCAL AUTHORITY
Defendant
Interested Parties
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephanie Harrison KC, Grace Capel, Nadia O’Mara and Isaac Ricca-Richardson
(instructed by Turpin Miller LLP) for the Claimant
Jack Holborn, Matthew Howarth and Ella Grodzinski
(instructed by Government Legal Department) for the SSHD
David Lawson and Katherine Hampshire (instructed by LCC) for Leeds City Council
Sian Davies (instructed by the Second LA) for the Second Local Authority
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hearing dates: 28 & 29.11.24
Further written submissions: 6 & 11.12.24, 5.12.24
Draft judgment: 17.1.25
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FORDHAM J
Note: This judgment was handed-down virtually at 10am on 29.1.25
by circulation to the parties and uploading to the National Archives.
FORDHAM J
Approved Judgment
BLZ No.2: R (BLZ) v LCC
FORDHAM J:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This case is about the approach of a local authority to the care and support needs of a
foreign national offender (“FNO”) who is in Home Office Bail Accommodation
(“HOBA”). It raises interrelated questions about: (1) when in law a local authority must
provide accommodation to meet care and support needs; and (2) whether in law a local
authority must treat HOBA as “residual” and “legally irrelevant”. Local authority
and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2847); the Care and Support
(Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/313); and the Care and Support
Statutory Guidance (5.10.23) which a local authority must “act under” when it is
Immigration Act 2016, together with the Immigration Bail Interim Guidance. This
judgment is the second in a pair. I heard two claims for judicial review arising out of
the same background facts. My judgment in the linked claim against the Home
Secretary (SSHD) is BLZ No.1 [2025] EWHC 153 (Admin). There are an anonymity
order and reporting restrictions in both claims, for reasons explained in BLZ No.1 at
§60. Everything in this second claim, against Leeds City Council (“LCC”), really stems
from the transfer of the Claimant by the SSHD on 20.9.23, from HOBA at Willow Lane
in Huddlesfield to HOBA at Rokeby Gardens in Leeds.
The Issues
2. The issues identified by the parties in this claim came to this:
Issue (1). Residuality and Legal Irrelevancy. (1a) Is HOBA provided by the SSHD under Sch
10 §9 to the 2016 Act “residual”? (1b) If so, did LCC misdirect itself in law in taking account
of accommodation provided by the SSHD under Sch 10 §9 when assessing the Claimant’s
eligible needs for care and support, including his “accommodation-related” needs under the
2014 Act? Issue (2). Misdirection. In conducting its assessments of the Claimant’s needs for
care and support under the 2014 Act, did LCC misdirect itself in law in deciding whether it had
a duty to accommodate the Claimant: (2a) By asking itself which of the Claimant’s needs were
not being met in the existing accommodation (provided in this case by the SSHD), instead of
asking itself what the Claimant’s needs were for the purposes of Part 1 of the 2014 Act? (2b)
By misdirecting itself as to what constitutes “eligible needs”, “care and support” and
“accommodation-related” needs within the meaning of the 2014 Act? (2c) By failing to address
the evidence of his needs? (2d) In focusing on whether the Claimant required supported living
accommodation (specialist accommodation) to the exclusion of other forms of accommodation?
Issue (3). Lawfulness and Reasonableness. Did LCC act lawfully and reasonably in the
assessments of the Claimant’s needs?
3. That means nine breaches of the law are being alleged: misdirection by taking into
account residual HOBA (Issue (1b)); misdirection as to “met” needs (Issue (2a);
misdirection as to “eligible needs” (first part of Issue (2b)); misdirection as to “care and
support” needs (second part of Issue (2b)); misdirection as to “accommodation-related”
needs (third part of Issue (2b)); misdirection by failing to address evidence (Issue (2c));
misdirection by focusing on specialist accommodation (Issue (2d)); unlawful
assessments (first part of Issue (3)); unreasonable assessments (second part of Issue
(3)).
2
FORDHAM J
Approved Judgment
BLZ No.2: R (BLZ) v LCC
Resolution of HRA Issues
4. The parties had also identified these issues under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA):
Issue (4). HRA. Did LCC breach the Claimant’s substantive Article 3 and/or 8 ECHR rights
between 29 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. (4a) Did the level of the Claimant’s
suffering or indignity during that period cross the severity threshold for constituting
“degrading treatment” under Article 3 ECHR? (4b) If so, is LCC responsible? (4c) Further or
alternatively, was the treatment of the Claimant during the relevant period a disproportionate
interference with his private life as protected by Article 8 ECHR? (4d) If so, is LCC
responsible?
The specified period (29.9.23 to 22.12.23) limits these HRA issues to the position while
the Claimant was at Rokeby Gardens (from 20.9.23), with a set of stairs outside his
bedroom. The date of 29.9.23 is when the Claimant’s solicitors wrote to LCC drawing
attention to that situation. Included is a period of “confined living”, between the date of
the Claimant’s hospital discharge (27.10.23) to the date when he was transferred from
Rokeby Gardens (22.12.23). The Claimant cannot succeed against LCC on these human
rights issues. They stand resolved by BLZ No.1. Included within Issue (4d) of BLZ
No.1 was the claim that the conditions at Rokeby Gardens from 20.9.23 to 22.12.23
crossed the relevant thresholds to constitute violations of Article 3 and Article 8, for
which the SSHD was said to be responsible. The parties were agreed that I should
deliberate and rule on BLZ No.1 only after the conclusion of the hearing of this second
claim, and having considered all the evidence and arguments. Having taken that course,
I have analysed the position in detail in BLZ No.1 at §§26-27, 31, 54-59, 81-84. I have
explained that the conditions experienced by the Claimant at Rokeby Gardens did not
cross the relevant thresholds to constitute substantive violations of his Article 3 or
Article 8 rights. In those circumstances there is no room – as a matter of legal logic –
on which an Article 3 or 8 claim against LCC can succeed.
Regulation 2 Eligibility
5. The criteria for eligible care and support needs are found in reg.2 of the 2015
Regulations:
2. Needs which meet the eligibility criteria: adults who need care and support. (1) An adult's
needs meet the eligibility criteria if – (a) the adult’s needs arise from or are related to a physical
or mental impairment or illness; (b) as a result of the adult’s needs the adult is unable to
achieve two or more of the outcomes specified in paragraph (2); and (c) as a consequence there
is, or is likely to be, a significant impact on the adult’s well-being. (2) The specified outcomes
are – (a) managing and maintaining nutrition; (b) maintaining personal hygiene; (c)
managing toilet needs; (d) being appropriately clothed; (e) being able to make use of the adult’s
home safely; (f) maintaining a habitable home environment; (g) developing and maintaining
family or other personal relationships; (h) accessing and engaging in work, training, education
or volunteering; (i) making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community
including public transport, and recreational facilities or services; and (j) carrying out any
caring responsibilities the adult has for a child. (3) For the purposes of this regulation an adult
is to be regarded as being unable to achieve an outcome if the adult – (a) is unable to achieve it
without assistance; (b) is able to achieve it without assistance but doing so causes the adult
significant pain, distress or anxiety; (c) is able to achieve it without assistance but doing so
endangers or is likely to endanger the health or safety of the adult, or of others; or (d) is able to
achieve it without assistance but takes significantly longer than would normally be expected.
(4) Where the level of an adult’s needs fluctuates, in determining whether the adult’s needs
meet the eligibility criteria, the local authority must take into account the adult’s circumstances
over such period as it considers necessary to establish accurately the adult’s level of need.
3
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting