Legal Challenges to NRPF

The High Court has found the use of the NRPF condition unlawful five times since 2018. One of the main organisations fighting for legal change is the Unity Project.

Although these rulings have not led to the removal of the condition, they have forced the UK government to amend the immigration rules and policy guidance, and for the individuals involved in the specific cases, led to the grants of recourse to public funds. 

The policy has been found unlawful for the following reasons:

Case: R (W) -v- SSHD (2020)

Key Information 

  • The NRPF policy at that time required applicants to demonstrate destitution before caseworkers would lift or not impose the condition
  • The divisional court held that the policy failed to make clear to caseworkers that they had to lift or not impose the condition where a person was at imminent risk of destitution and/or inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or its common law analogue.
  • The Defendant amended the policy to refer to ‘imminent’ destitution following the case
  •  

Case: ST & Another v SSHD [2021] E 

Key Information

  • The Divisional Court held that the NRPF policy at the time failed to require caseworkers to comply with the duty to have regard to the best interests of children in section 55 of the Borders Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. 

Case: R (A&M) v SSHD (CO/4615/2018) 

Key Information

  • Details are limited and there is no electronic copy of the case filings but the defendant failed to conduct public secttor equality duty compliance review of the policy 
  • The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, requires public authorities and bodies providing public functions to consciously consider the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations.
  • Compliance requires publishing equality objectives and relevant data to demonstrate due regard to protected characteristics. 

Case: SAG & Ors v Secretary of State for The Home Department

Key Information:

  • Evidence presented the wait time was over 70 days
  • The Secretary of State found to have failed to implement a system that ensures sufficiently timeous decisions on application to lift NRPF conditions to minimise, in a proportionate way, the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment.
  • She therefore breached the “low level systems duty” that arises under article 3 ECHR. 

Safety Exit