Refugee Action's legal challenge over the level of financial support for asylum seekers succeeds at the High Court
In a new judgment out today, the High Court has ruled that the Home Office acted unlawfully in setting payments to meet the essential living needs of asylum seekers.
EIN members can read the judgment, Refugee Action, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1033 (Admin), here.
The legal challenge was brought by the charity Refugee Action.
In a press release, Refugee Action says today's "landmark" ruling found that Home Secretary Theresa May was 'irrational' in her decision making and 'misunderstood information' when setting a cripplingly low level of financial support for people seeking asylum in UK.
The Hon. Mr Justice Popplewell ruled that the Secretary of State "failed to take reasonable steps to gather sufficient information to enable her to make a rational judgment in setting the asylum support rates for 2013/2014."
You can read a full summary of today's judgment on the Refugee Action website here.
On hearing today's judgment, Dave Garratt, Chief Executive of Refugee Action, said: "The decision to take this judicial review was not taken lightly and followed extensive research and advocacy by Refugee Action and our partners across the sector. After five years of our evidence being ignored, we felt legal action was our only option."
"While we are hugely heartened by today's judgment, we urgently need to see the Home Office acting on this ground-breaking ruling by setting up a transparent and robust enquiry into the way asylum support rates are calculated. Once and for all let's put an end to these levels of poverty amongst some of the most vulnerable in Britain."
Refugee Action says its research found that half of asylum seekers it surveyed couldn't buy enough food to feed themselves or their families.
BBC News quoted a Home Office spokesman as saying in response to today's ruling: "We are disappointed with the Court's judgment. We are looking at all options, including appealing."
The Home Office said that the judgment did not say payments were too low, but rather that there were errors in the way current levels had been set.