Rawle Ganpot v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Clive Sheldon |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 197 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/320/2023 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
R (on the application of
[2023] EWHC 197 (Admin)
Clive Sheldon KC (SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
Case No: CO/320/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Alex Schymyck (instructed by Luton Law Centre) for the Claimants
Darryl Balroop (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Secretary of State
Hearing dates: February 1 st 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.15am on 3 February 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archive.
Clive Sheldon QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge):
Introduction
This is an application for interim relief brought by three Claimants: Rawle Ganpot, Paul Dickson, and Fayrose Dickson. Rawle and Fayrose are partners, and Paul is their son. They seek interim relief from the Defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the form of a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to provide them with accommodation pending the final hearing of their application for judicial review.
I heard full argument on the application on 1 February 2023 and, at the end of the hearing, I notified the parties that the application for interim relief was successful, and that I would provide my reasons at a later date. These are my reasons.
Factual Background
All three Claimants came to the United Kingdom from Grenada in the mid-to-late 1990s (Paul in 1996, Rawle and Fayrose in 1997). They lived with Fayrose's daughter until she asked them to leave in September 2021.
The Claimants were then accommodated by Luton Borough Council in temporary licenced accommodation for a weekly charge of £193.33. The Claimants were not in a position to make the rental payments and arrears of around £10,000 built up. On 11 January 2023, Luton Borough Council informed the Claimants that they would be evicted from their property on 30 January 2023.
In the meantime, the Claimants had applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the 20-year rule operated by the Defendant (“the private life route”). Paul initially applied as a dependent of his mother Fayrose. He has now applied in his own right.
The Claimants have stated that they do not have any income, other than a small State pension for Fayrose. They have lived on charitable donations: including the use of soup kitchens and food banks and support from members of the local community. I am told that Rawle is 73 years old, and suffers from hypertension, diabetes and chronic stage 3 kidney disease. I am told that Paul is 49 years old, and suffers from diabetes and asthma, and may have some learning difficulties. I am told that Fayrose is 69 years old and suffers from diabetes.
On 6 January 2023, Rawle applied to the Defendant for accommodation and support, using the Defendant's “BAIL 409” form. The form is headed “Application for Immigration Bail Accommodation (Exceptional Circumstances including Article 3 ECHR)”. Paul applied on 10 January 2023. Their applications were refused on 13 and 17 January 2023 respectively. On 18 January 2023, Fayrose made her application for accommodation and support.
Shortly afterwards, Rawle and Paul issued judicial review proceedings against the Defendant, and applied for interim relief. Linden J. ordered a hearing to take place on the application for interim relief on 30 January 2023. That hearing took place before me. At that hearing, it was explained by Mr. Balroop, Counsel for the Defendant, that the Defendant would reconsider the applications made by Rawle and Paul. Consideration would also be given to Fayrose's situation. I was also told that Luton Borough Council had agreed to extend accommodation arrangements until 1 February 2023. Accordingly, I adjourned the hearing until 1 February 2023. Fayrose issued judicial review proceedings against the Defendant on 31 January 2023 and applied for interim relief on the same date. I have ordered that her application for interim relief be heard alongside that of Rawle and Paul.
The Defendant has reconsidered the applications for immigration bail and accommodation brought by Rawle and Paul, and has considered (for the first time) the application brought by Fayrose. The decisions are stated in identical terms. The applications have been refused. The Defendant has stated that:
“Having carefully considered your application on Form Bail 409, I am not satisfied that you meet the criteria set under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016. To be eligible to receive support under Schedule 10 you must demonstrate you have been granted Immigration Bail, are destitute and refusal of support would breach your human rights.
Although your destitution has been accepted, your application has been refused for the following reasons:
— You have not been granted Immigration Bail.
— It is considered that you have the ability to return to your country of origin, or any other country of willing to accept you as a national.
— It is not considered that there are any barriers to you voluntarily returning to Grenada. The embassy has the power to issue travel documents for individuals who wish to return to Grenada.
— There is no record of you submitting an application for either the Voluntary Returns Service or the Facilitated Return Scheme. It is therefore not considered that you are taking reasonable steps to leave the UK.
— You have submitted no medical evidence that you are unable to leave the UK at the present time
— It is not the opinion of the Secretary of State that there is no viable route to Grenada.
In addition to the above,
On the information available it is not considered that you have an outstanding asylum claim, nor are you a Failed Asylum Seeker. It is therefore not considered that there are any legal or practical obstacles to you returning to your country of origin. As such, the denial of support does not constitute a breach of your human rights”.
The Submissions
In summary, the arguments made by Mr. Schymyck, Counsel for the Claimants, are as follows:
(i) The Defendant has the power under the immigration bail provisions of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 to grant immigration bail to individuals who are “liable to detention” (paragraph 1(1)(a) and 1(2) of Schedule 10: detention of persons liable to examination or removal). The Defendant has power to impose a condition requiring the individuals to reside at a particular address. Further, the Defendant has power to arrange for the provision of accommodation...
To continue reading
Request your trial