The Queen (on the application of Shajmin Akter Parul) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Benjamin Douglas-Jones |
| Judgment Date | 15 August 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2143 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1839/2022 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2022] EWHC 2143 (Admin)
Mr Benjamin Douglas-Jones QC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Case No: CO/1839/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Craig Barlow and Olivia Beach (instructed by Lawstop Solicitors) for the Claimant
Rob Harland (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 27 July 2022
This judgment was handed down by the Deputy Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 on 15 August 2022.
Benjamin Douglas-Jones QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court:
Introduction
The Claimant, Shajmin Akter Parul, applies for a judicial review of the failure of the Defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”), to provide her with suitable accommodation in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“Tower Hamlets”), pursuant to section 4, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“section 4” and “the 1999 Act”), and in accordance with the Defendant's agreement to provide self-contained accommodation on the ground floor, or on an upper floor with access via a lift, in Tower Hamlets, within a reasonable time period. The Defendant agreed to provide such accommodation in a 3 March 2022 Pre-Action Protocol (“PAP”) letter (“the 3 March 2022 letter”). The single ground of challenge is that the failure to provide such accommodation is unlawful on four bases: (1) it breaches the Defendant's duty to source accommodation within a reasonable period of time; (2) it breaches the Defendant's own guidance; (3) it breaches the Defendant's statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 29(7), Equality Act 2010 (“the Equality Act”); and / or (4) it is unreasonable.
The Defendant's position is that, while she agrees that the Claimant should be rehoused in suitable accommodation in Tower Hamlets, she denies that the delay in finding the Claimant accommodation has been unreasonable. Through the 3 March 2022 letter, the Defendant agreed to move the Claimant to be close to the support network of her family and physicians treating her many medical conditions, in particular, specialists at The Royal London Hospital (“RLH”), in Tower Hamlets, which is where her epilepsy is treated and managed. From 26 March 2021, the Claimant has been, and continues to be, housed in a property in Lambeth. The Defendant's position is that suitable accommodation has not been arranged because none is available.
The Claimant's claim is brought with the permission of Ms Clare Padley, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, who granted permission for the Claimant to apply for judicial review on 24 June 2022 and ordered that the hearing of the claim be expedited.
Before me, Mr Craig Barlow appeared on behalf of the Claimant. Mr Rob Harland represented the Defendant. The Claimant's Statement of Facts and Grounds, Reply and skeleton argument were drafted by Ms Olivia Beach of Counsel. I am grateful to all Counsel for their clearly presented submissions.
The Claimant's immigration history
The Claimant was born on 25 September 1978 in Bangladesh. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 6 May 2009 and, on 23 April 2010, claimed asylum. On 21 May 2010, the Claimant's asylum claim was refused. On 21 July 2010, her appeal rights became exhausted. Since then, the Claimant has made further attempts to secure leave to remain in the UK. These claims have not been successful. In 2017, the Claimant's asylum claims were refused. On 14 October 2020, the Claimant advanced further submissions in respect of her status in the UK. These are still being considered by the Defendant.
During the above period, on 26 August 2017, the Claimant was granted section 4 support, whereby “The Secretary of State may provide, or arrange for the provision of, facilities for the accommodation of a person if … his claim for asylum was rejected …”.
Medical conditions
The Claimant suffers from multiple chronic medical conditions. They include pulmonary sarcoidosis (a disease characterised by the growth of tiny collections of inflammatory cells (granulomas) in any part of the body — most commonly the lungs and lymph nodes); focal non-lesional epilepsy, which manifests with focal to bilateral motor seizures; memory loss; dysphasia (language disorder marked by deficiency in the generation of speech); and depression. Since December 2021, the Claimant has suffered seven epileptic attacks: she takes Lamotrigine (250mg) twice daily and Lacosamide (which she stopped taking for a period of time because of its side-effects). According to a letter, dated 17 February 2022, of Ms Samantha Gough, Epilepsy Nurse Specialist, based at the Department of Neurology at RLH, “on-going epileptic seizures are a risk to [the Claimant's] health and [wellbeing].” The Claimant “… is at immediate risk of injury and death (SUDEP) from seizures” and “the after effects (she will be exhausted, confused and in pain) make it difficult for her to perform her daily activities safely such as food shopping, cooking and washing”. Ms Gough further set out that, following an epileptic attack, the Claimant will be vulnerable. She will be more vulnerable and more reliant on emergency services if she suffers an attack away from her family. The family and local support can provide the Claimant with immediate assistance following seizures in a number of different respects. Being close to her family will reduce the factors which cause attacks. Her epilepsy is complex. RLH is the safest epilepsy care centre for the Claimant.
The Claimant has attempted suicide via overdose on more than one occasion. The Claimant also suffers from a weakened immune system from steroid treatment for her sarcoidosis. She receives treatment from three hospitals in East London, including RLH. She is registered with Chrisp Street Health Centre doctors' surgery (“CSHC”) (also in Tower Hamlets). In a letter, dated 31 March 2021, Dr Ben Hart, a general practitioner based there set out that the Claimant should be moved to accommodation near CSHC because of her “… complex health problems …”, including sarcoidosis and severe epilepsy. She was reliant on CSHC to “… co-ordinate her complex care and manage her problems.” Being in shared accommodation (in Lambeth) “… puts her at significantly high risk of COVID …”. She should “… not have to share.” The Claimant has been reliant on support from her sister. She stays with her sister to feel safe and to attend medical appointments. However, this arrangement is not sustainable over the long term.
Chronology of Accommodation History
On 26 February 2021, the Claimant was moved by the Defendant to Seth Court Accommodation Hostel, student accommodation at 53 Parmiter, Tower Hamlets, E2 9EX. She remained there for one month. On 26 March 2021, the Claimant was relocated by the Defendant to her current accommodation, 16 Palace Road, London, SW2 3NG. This is in the London Borough of Lambeth. It is ground floor accommodation in which the Claimant shares a bathroom and a kitchen with other residents. It is a journey of approximately one hour and 15 minutes from there to Tower Hamlets. On 13 January 2022, Migrant Help, a charity helping the Claimant, made a dispersal request of the Defendant by email for the Claimant to be relocated to accommodation in Tower Hamlets to allow her to be close to her GP, CSMC, RLH and her family (“the 13 January 2022 email”).
On 25 January 2022, the Defendant informed the Claimant that she was being moved to accommodation in Redhill. On 26 January 2022, the Claimant refused to move when transport arrived to collect her. On 27 January 2022, the Claimant sent the Defendant a PAP letter before action (“LBA”), requesting that the dispersal to Redhill be cancelled and that she be moved to Tower Hamlets in accordance with the 13 January 2022 email.
On 15 February 2022, the Defendant stated in a PAP response that she had not received the 13 January 2022 email; and, accordingly, “… our decision remains, and [the Claimant] will be dispersed accordingly as per previous advice given by our medical adviser”. That advice was that the Claimant should be housed within a “reasonable travelling distance of [Tower Hamlets] – say max. 1 hour” in ground floor accommodation or accommodation with a lift and a shower, not a bath. That day, the Claimant resent the 13 January 2022 email to the Defendant, with confirmation from Migrant Help (of 15 February 2022) that the dispersal request had been sent to the Defendant on 13 January 2022.
The further email prompted a reply of the Defendant, on 3 March 2022: the Defendant confirmed that the Claimant's relocation request had been granted. She would be moved to self-contained ground floor accommodation or upper floors(s) accommodation with access via a lift in Tower Hamlets. The Defendant stated: “Once our accommodation provider has sourced suitable accommodation, you will be advised of the property details and any travel arrangements, if required.”
On 17, 24 and 31 March 2022, the Claimant emailed the Defendant asking if suitable accommodation had been found. In the first email the Claimant also requested a timeframe for her relocation. The Defendant did not respond to these emails. On 7 April 2022, the Claimant sent a second LBA to the Defendant. This challenged the delay in providing suitable accommodation and requested of the Defendant a proposed timeframe within which she would secure the accommodation. On 21 April 2022, the Defendant responded in the following terms:
“Enquiries have been made with the Asylum Support Team who have confirmed that checks are still being conducted to find your...
To continue reading
Request your trial