Matthew Howarth in the High Court: Immigration Detention, Section 95 and the Care Act 2014

Matthew Howarth, represented the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) in a complex administrative law dispute. The case involved a judicial review application by MM, a claimant with cognitive impairments, against the SSHD and the London Borough of Hillingdon. The proceedings centered on the responsibility for accommodating the claimant under the Care Act 2014 and the SSHD’s obligations under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

The case is a significant interim relief ruling in determining the responsibilities or ‘balance of convenience’ between the SSHD and a Local Authority for a Foreign National Offender, who is a repeat offender, and who has mental health issues (subject to Court of Protection proceedings).

Case History and Significance

The case highlighted the intricate interplay between the Care Act 2014 and immigration law, particularly regarding the responsibilities of local authorities and the SSHD. The claimant, who had been in immigration detention, required care and support due to his cognitive impairments. The London Borough of Hillingdon accepted a duty to assess his needs under the Care Act but declined to provide supported accommodation pending assessment. The SSHD maintained that the council was responsible for accommodating the claimant under the Care Act.

The case is significant because it raises complex legal issues about the balance of responsibilities between local authorities and the SSHD. It also underscores the importance of considering the well-being principles under the Care Act, which emphasize the need to protect individuals from abuse and neglect while ensuring any restrictions on their rights are minimal.

Area of Law Covered and Determinations

The case involved several key legal areas:

– Care Act 2014: The court considered whether the local authority had properly assessed the claimant’s needs and whether it should provide supported accommodation under sections 9 and 19 of the Act.

– Immigration Law: The SSHD’s role in accommodating individuals under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was contrasted with the Care Act’s provisions.

– Administrative Law: The proceedings involved judicial review principles, including the threshold test for interim relief and the balance of convenience.

Parties’ Submissions

– Claimant: Argued that the council had failed to properly assess his needs and provide necessary care and support, emphasizing the urgency of his situation.

– SSHD: Maintained that the responsibility for accommodating the claimant lay with the local authority under the Care Act.

– London Borough of Hillingdon: Contended that it had assessed the claimant’s needs and found no urgent requirements for care and support, while also highlighting practical difficulties in providing accommodation.

Outcome

The court ultimately ruled in favour of the claimant and the SSHD, enforcing the interim relief order that required the council to provide accommodation with care and support. The decision emphasised the council’s ongoing responsibility to identify suitable accommodation to facilitate a potential bail application for the claimant.

This is one of three significant and complex administrative law disputes where Mr Howarth has represented the SSHD, particularly involving the intersection of care law and immigration responsibilities. It highlights Mr Howarth’s unique experience and practice between the nuanced obligations of both local authorities and government departments in ensuring the well-being and rights of vulnerable individual subject to Immigration Control.

Please click here for the judgement.

For more information, or to instruct Matthew Howarth, please contact the clerking team.