Matthew Howarth in BLZ (No.1), High Court: Home Office Bail Accommodation and Safe Release Planning for Foreign National Offenders
Matthew Howarth in BLZ (No.1), before the High Court: Home Office Bail Accommodation (HOBA) and safe release planning for foreign national offenders (FNOs).
In the landmark case of BLZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 153 (Admin), Matthew Howarth, led by Jack Holborn, successfully represented the Home Office in a complex judicial review concerning Home Office Bail Accommodation (HOBA) and safe release planning for foreign national offenders (FNOs).
This high-profile case, and now leading precedent in this area, was heard by Fordham J in the High Court which examined the intricate interplay between immigration law, human rights obligations, and social care responsibilities. At its core were questions about the allocation of suitable HOBA under Schedule 10 ยง9 of the Immigration Act 2016 and the implementation of safe release procedures from immigration removal centers (IRCs) as governed by Detention Services Order 08/2016.
The case arose from an FTT order granting the claimant “immigration bail in principle” with a residence condition requiring accommodation arranged by the Home Secretary. This set in motion a series of events that ultimately led to two linked judicial review claims – one against the Home Office and another against Leeds City Council.
The complexity of the case stemmed from the intersection of multiple legal frameworks:
1. Immigration law governing HOBA provision
2. Human rights considerations under the Human Rights Act 1998
3. Equality duties under the Equality Act 2010
4. Social care obligations under the Care Act 2014
A key issue was delineating responsibilities between the Home Office under immigration legislation and local authorities under social care law. The court had to determine whether the Home Office had acted lawfully in its accommodation provision and release planning, particularly for an individual with complex health and care needs.
The case raised several novel legal questions, including:
1. Whether the Home Office had a duty to implement specific written policies for identifying potential care needs and making local authority referrals for HOBA recipients
2. The extent of the Home Office’s “systems duty” under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR in the context of HOBA provision
3. How to apply reasonable adjustments duties under the Equality Act to HOBA allocation processes
Counsel on behalf of the SSHD argued that:
1. Existing policies and practices were sufficient to meet legal obligations
2. There was no unlawful “policy gap” regarding care needs identification
3. The claimant’s accommodation met the required standards of adequacy
4. Any deficiencies in care provision were primarily the responsibility of local authorities under the Care Act 2014
The court’s judgment provided important clarification on the scope of Home Office duties in this complex area. While finding some procedural shortcomings, the court largely accepted the Home Office’s position that it had not acted unlawfully in its core functions of HOBA provision and safe release planning.
This case sets a significant precedent for future litigation at the intersection of immigration enforcement, human rights, and social care. The lengthy judgement sets out a comprehensive review of the law in this area. It underscores the need for clear delineation of responsibilities between central and local government when dealing with vulnerable foreign national offenders subject to immigration control.
It is one of two significant judgments, with the both cases lasting a total of ten days in the High Court and is one of the longest running Judicial Review applications to be heard.
Matthew Howarth’s representation of the Home Office, as part of a strong team, in this landmark case strengthens his reputation as a leading barrister in complex public law matters involving multiple overlapping legal regimes.