Kharajan Arshad Fathula Mohammad v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Chamberlain |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 240 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/332/2020 |
| Date | 09 February 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 240 (Admin)
Mr Justice Chamberlain
Case No: CO/332/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ranjiv Khubber (instructed by Greater Manchester Law Centre) for the Claimant
Ben Keith (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 8 February 2021
Approved Judgment
Introduction
There was a directions hearing in this matter on 8 February 2021. The hearing was necessary because the Secretary of State for the Home Department failed to comply with a mandatory injunction issued by a judge of this Court. At the conclusion of the hearing, I gave directions. Given the potential importance of the issues raised, I said that I would give reasons in writing. These are my reasons.
The background to the claim
The Claimant is an Iranian national. In 2016 he was convicted of a sexual offence involving a minor and sentenced to 1 year and 8 months' imprisonment. After he had served this sentence, he was detained under immigration powers, but in May 2018 was released on bail subject to a condition that he wear an electronic tag. On release, he initially lived at a friend's house.
On 15 October 2020, the Claimant applied though the charity Refugee Action for accommodation and support from the Secretary of State under s. 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. On 22 October 2020, the Secretary of State granted his request for support under that provision and informed him that he would receive further correspondence containing details of his accommodation and proposed travel plans once suitable accommodation had been found.
Over the next few months, no accommodation was provided. Refugee Action followed this up on a number of occasions, to no avail. On 7 December 2020, they sent a letter before claim. The Secretary of State responded on 14 December 2020 noting that because of the Claimant's conviction suitable accommodation was limited and that the pandemic had given rise to problems in sourcing accommodation.
On 22 January 2021, the Greater Manchester Immigration Unit emailed the Home Office indicating that since the previous night the Claimant had been street homeless and that he was suffering from depression, at risk of suicide and exposed to the risk of contracting COVID-19. They pointed out that his application for s. 4 accommodation had been granted some three months previously. On the same day, the Claimant was referred to the Greater Manchester Law Centre (“the Law Centre”).
The Law Centre sent a pre-action letter on 22 January 2021, asking for a response by 25 January 2021. A response was received on 26 January 2021, but it was in generic terms and contained no attempt to deal with – nor indeed any substantive reference to – the specific facts of the Claimant's case. On 27 January 2021, the Law Centre sent a further email to the Secretary of State notifying her that funding had been granted and proceedings would be issued urgently in light of the fact that the Claimant was now street homeless and destitute.
The claim, application for interim relief and subsequent events
On Friday 29 January 2021, a claim for judicial review was issued, together with an application for urgent consideration applying for interim relief. The documents were copied to the Government Legal Service and the Home Office by email.
The claim was considered by Lang J on the same day. After considering the documents lodged by the Claimant, she made an Order. Paragraph 1 was in these terms:
“The Defendant do provide suitable accommodation and financial support for the Claimant, pursuant to section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, by 1 pm on Tuesday 2 February 2021, until the determination of the permission application or further order.”
Lang J also abridged time for service of the Defendant's Acknowledgement of Service to 14 days from service of her Order, gave the Defendant liberty to apply to vary or discharge her order on 2 days' notice to the Claimant's solicitors, and reserved the costs. She said that the appropriate time to review the grant of interim relief would be at the permission stage, when the judge would have all the relevant information available.
The Government Legal Department was notified of this order by email from the court at 15.35 on 29 January. Ms Laura Gibbons of the Law Centre also emailed a copy of the order to the Government Legal Department, asking them to confirm the arrangements for the provision of accommodation in compliance with the order.
By 12.05 on Tuesday 2 February 2021, Ms Gibbons had received no response, so she emailed the Government Legal Department again. There was still no response. The deadline of 13.00 came and went and, at 14.11, Ms Gibbons emailed the court, copied to the Government Legal Department, noting that the Claimant remained homeless, the Defendant had failed to comply with the Order and making clear that she intended to make an application for contempt of court if confirmation was not received by 15.00 that the Order had been complied with.
Next, Ms Gibbons called the Government Legal Department's enquiry line and obtained the name of the lawyer assigned to the matter. Ms Gibbons spoke to that lawyer. At 15.16, she emailed the lawyer her contact details. The email was acknowledged. At 16.39, Ms Gibbons emailed again asking if there was any update or explanation and noting that she had no choice but to pursue proceedings in respect of the Defendant's failure to comply with the order.
There was no response. Ms Gibbons therefore contacted Manchester City Council, who provided temporary hotel accommodation for the night of Tuesday 2 February 2021, on condition that appropriate action was taken to secure compliance by the Defendant with its obligation.
In these circumstances, Ms Gibbons made a further application to the Court on Wednesday 3 February 2021, seeking further relief to compel the Secretary of State to comply with the order of Lang J. That application was not placed before a judge until the following day. Mr Ranjiv Khubber, for the Claimant, told me that the Claimant spent the night of 3 February on the street because, although Manchester City Council had found somewhere for him to stay, he had no means of getting there. Mr Ben Keith, for the Secretary of State, said that it was his understanding that the Claimant had spent the night of 3 February in a hotel.
The Claimant's second application for interim relief came before me on Thursday 4 February 2021. I gave the Secretary of State until 16.00 that day to give a written explanation of the following matters:
“(a) whether she accepts that she has failed to comply with the Order of Lang J in this case; (b) if not, in what respects she disputes the matters set out in the Witness Statement of Laura Gibbons; if so, why she had failed to comply with Lang J's Order and how she intends to rectify this failure; (c) in any event, the name and business address of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adrian John Bailey v Secretary of State for Justice
...The fact that the contempt may have been committed by Ministers or officials does not attenuate the obligation: R (Mohammad) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 240 (Admin), [26], and the authorities referred to there. However, the Court is not required to initiate pro......
-
R BH v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...to have breached the 13 April 2022 Order is explained by Chamberlain J in Mohammad v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 240 (Admin): the appropriate course would be to invite the Secretary of State to give a formal explanation of the breach, supported by witness stateme......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2024-02-08, JR-2022-LON-002069
...is enough that as a matter of fact and law, they do so put him in breach.” In Mohammad v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 240 (Admin), Chamberlain J, having stated that breach of an injunction can result in proceedings for contempt, even where the breach is by a Minist......
-
The King on the application of ZOS v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of court, and that I should make directions for that issue to be determined. 77 In Mohammed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 240, Chamberlain J heard a directions hearing necessitated by the Secretary of State for the Home Department failing to comply with a mandator......