R Chukwuma v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Dight |
| Judgment Date | 29 September 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 4233 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 29 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | CO/3887/2015 |
[2015] EWHC 4233 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
His Honour Judge Dight
(Sitting as Judge of the High Court)
CO/3887/2015
The Claimant appeared in Person
Mr J Holborn (instructed by Government Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
By these proceedings the claimant seeks to challenge first, in the form in which they are set out in the claim form, the defendant's alleged delay in implementing the provision of support under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which I refer to as "the Act", which she was committed to providing for him; secondly, the delay in making a decision on further submissions made by the claimant on 28th May 2015 for indefinite leave to remain in respect of which the claimant seeks a mandatory order requiring her to determine the decision relatively quickly.
The defendant says in her acknowledgement of service and through counsel, that so far as the first matter is concerned, there has been no delay: there has in fact been no refusal: the defendant has offered accommodation to the claimant which has been refused: that the claimant has in any event indicated that the accommodation likely to be offered was unacceptable and that finally, the claimant can re-apply for support under section 4 and given the circumstances in which he now finds himself there might be an expectation that it be dealt with relatively promptly.
In respect of the second limb of the application it is submitted by the defendant that there has been no unlawful delay — it has only been three months and that the facts relied upon by the claimant do not come close to showing that the delay has in any event been unlawful.
The proceedings form part of a chain of proceedings which have a considerable chronological background. The claimant came to the United Kingdom in 2005. He is a Nigerian national. He came as a student, aged I think then 31, and undertook certain studies here. Not long after arriving he was diagnosed with kidney failure, for which he received treatment in the United Kingdom leading to a kidney transplant in July 2010, as a result of which he was placed on daily lifelong anti-rejection medication, which had the effects of depressing his immune system, making him prone to infections and pertinent to the matters that I have to consider, he was given medical advice that he was not to live in shared accommodation.
On 24th March 2015 the defendant wrote to the claimant confirming that he would be provided with section 4 support, stating that he would receive an approved payment card to purchase food and essential toiletries and that he would be advised when accommodation was available for him. The letter goes on to say:
i. "When allocating accommodation every care is taken to ensure that it meets the needs of the individual. However it is not always possible to provide accommodation in the area in which you currently reside. If you are applying in the London area your new accommodation will not be in the London area unless you have informed us in your application form that you have exceptional circumstances which require you to remain in London. If you are applying for a region outside the London area in some instances unless you have included this in your application form that there are exceptional circumstances which require you to remain in the area in which you currently reside in … new accommodation in the same area.
ii. You should also be aware that accommodation is provided on a no choice basis. If you fail to travel without reasonable excuse to the accommodation offered, there should be no expectation that an alternative will be offered, you may be required to share a room in shared accommodation."
While there is a dispute about some of the more recent chronology it is apparent that the claimant, who had been offered a place to study at the University of Reading on a course intending to lead to a PGCE qualification, indicated that he wanted to remain in London. He wrote to the defendant in answer to the letter of 24th March, stating that he accepted the offer of section 4 support. The defendant offered accommodation to the claimant. There was a telephone discussion on 9th April 2015 about the nature of the accommodation that was on offer.
That the claimant informed the defendant that he was not happy with the decision that the accommodation would not be in London and that he intended not to accept the offered accommodation and would appeal that decision. There is a dispute about whether accommodation was subsequently re-booked and offered to the claimant, a matter which I do not take into account in the circumstances given the dispute.
On 12th June 2015 the claimant's private landlord served on him notices under section 8 and section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, expiring on 16th August 2015, relying on mandatory grounds for possession, following which on 25th August 2015 the landlord commenced possession proceedings in the Croydon County Court which are due to be heard on 9th October 2015. The likelihood is, bearing in mind the landlord relies on mandatory grounds, that a possession order will be made and that by the middle of November at the earliest the claimant will find himself homeless unless he is accommodated elsewhere.
The claimant again applied to the defendant for section 4 support, which was refused in a letter dated 18th September 2015, on the grounds that the defendant had formed the view that because of the claimant was "self-funding" for his course at Reading University, he would not be a "destitute" person entitled to support under section 4. That appears to have been based on a misunderstanding because the reality is that the funding will not in fact be available because the claimant does not have permission to remain in the country indefinitely and the decision has itself therefore been challenged by the claimant.
The Secretary of State has, through counsel, indicated before me that if the claimant were today to make a fresh application for section 4 support, that application would be considered although, for obvious reasons, the Secretary of State is not prepared to commit to a timescale for consideration of that application.
The procedural history is rather complicated in that this is the fifth application made by the claimant for permission for judicial review of decisions made by the Secretary of State since 20The first being one by which he sought permission in 2011 of her refusal of leave to remain under Tier 1 post study category. That application was withdrawn following the grant on 16th June 2011 of 24 months' leave to remain under that category.
The claimant sought an extension of that leave to remain, which was refused and that led to a further set of proceedings in 2013, seeking judicial review of the decision by the defendant that she could not grant further leave under that category. That application was refused by the single judge and subsequently by the Court of Appeal, both of whom certified that it was totally without merit.
An application was then made in June 2013, by the claimant, for indefinite leave to remain shortly before his leave under Tier 1 post study category expired. On 29th November 2013 the claimant made an asylum application based on medical issues and an alleged breach of his human rights, asserting to me today that he was forced to do this that because the defendant had indicated that if he were not to seek asylum he would be removed. That asylum claim was refused...
To continue reading
Request your trial