Government ‘unlawfully’ housed asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield – High Court
Four former residents of RAF Wethersfield brought legal action against the Home Office.
The Government acted “unlawfully” by accommodating four vulnerable asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield, a High Court judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Mould found that the Home Secretary had made “a most serious and inexplicable omission” in failing to assess the impact on disabled asylum seekers and those with serious mental health issues when changing the asylum accommodation policy.
A result of this was that vulnerable asylum seekers with special needs or disabilities could be judged suitable to be accommodated at Wethersfield, the judge said.
Four former residents of RAF Wethersfield brought legal action against the Home Office, claiming it acted unlawfully by housing them at the site when it was “not suitable” because of characteristics which included being victims of torture and human trafficking or being disabled.
The Home Office opposed the challenge, saying its allocation system was “not incapable of being operated lawfully”.
The men all stayed at the former airbase near Braintree, Essex, between July 2023 and February 2024.
In a 136-page ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Mould found the Home Office was in breach of its duty in failing to assess the impact of policy change on asylum seekers with special needs.
He said: “In my judgment, the claimants’ case is plainly well-founded.”
Mr Justice Mould said the equality impact assessment “makes no attempt to assess the equalities implications” of the proposed policy change, which means asylum seekers with disabilities or serious mental health issues may be judged to be suitable for accommodation at Wethersfield.
He added: “In this case, the only conclusion I am able to reach on evidence is that the defendant did not attempt to assess the equalities impacts of the proposed policy change.”
The judge also found that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully and in breach of her duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in relation to three of the men.
Barristers for the men had claimed the accommodation was “seriously inadequate” and there was a “structural and systemic failure” to identify vulnerabilities which would exclude people from being housed there.
However, the High Court in London found that the home secretary’s updated policies and procedures for identifying asylum seekers unsuitable for Wethersfield, was now capable of operating lawfully.
He added: “I do not accept that the conditions of accommodation provided for asylum seekers at Wethersfield as described in the evidence before the court have been shown to be so deficient as to be incapable of providing adequate accommodation for asylum seekers.”
In respect of one of the men, a 25-year-old Eritrean national who cannot be named, the judge found that he had been “unlawfully accommodated” at Wethersfield as the home secretary failed “to have regard to credible evidence that he was the victim of human trafficking”.
The then-Conservative government announced plans to house migrants at Wethersfield, as well as RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire, in March 2023.
Migrants began to be housed at Wethersfield last July, with capacity currently capped at 580 despite initial plans to accommodate 1,700 people.
Clare Jennings of Gold Jennings, who represented one of the men, said: “We are delighted that the High Court has acknowledged the significant failings in the treatment of our client, TG, by the home secretary, and the detrimental impact that being in Wethersfield had on his already fragile mental health.
“We are concerned that the continued use of large, ex-military sites, to house asylum seekers remains highly problematic and puts vulnerable people at risk.”
Emily Soothill of DPG, who represented another of the men, said: “People seeking asylum, especially victims of torture and trafficking, are more vulnerable to physical and mental illness.
“They have the right to be treated with dignity and should not be accommodated en masse in military barracks.”
