The UK Court of Appeal has ruled that a failed asylum seeker with indefinite leave to remain was entitled to have residential accommodation provided by his local authority.
The case concerned an Iranian man who submitted that his entitlement to receive care and attention from Westminster County Council also extended to residential accommodation. At the time of the CoA hearing, the applicant was a failed asylum seeker who had yet to be granted indefinite leave to remain.
As the applicant was later granted indefinite leave to remain, there was a question about whether the proceedings had become moot. However in granting the applicant leave to appeal, Tomlinson LJ commented that "whilst superficially a decision on the particular facts, I accept that the decision raises broader questions of principle."
Treating legal proceedings as moot can prove a barrier to litigating public interest issues. Click here to find online case summaries and FAQs on mootness by PILA.
The applicant came to the UK in 2006 fearing persecution in his home country on account of his sexual orientation. He became homeless in October 2009 following the rejection of his 2007 application for refugee status. He attempted to commit suicide in December 2009 following the death of his partner in an Iranian prison. At the time of the hearing, the applicant was receiving support from counselling groups.
Westminster City Council asserted that they did not owe a duty of care towards the applicant to provide him with residential accommodation as they said he was not in need of care and attention within the meaning of the relevant legislation.
Lord Justice Laws described the "turf war" between local authorities and the central Government over the meaning of "care and attention" in the legislation as being focused "more on the policy of the material provisions than on the statutory language". In allowing the appeal, Lord Justice Laws agreed with the submissions of the applicant's Counsel that "it would be absurd to provide a care and support to the applicant without providing him with stable accommodation".
Click here to read a more detailed review and commentary of the case from the Nearly Legal blog. This blog comments that the "Court's finding on 'care and attention' the finding that it amounts to 'do something for a person that they cannot do themselves' and that this support does not have to attain any particular level of intensity is a clear marker ... that the Council (and indeed the court) should not impose an additional condition of severity [when applying the law]".