High Court upholds interim relief for vulnerable claimant

Background of the Case

The High Court, sitting in the Administrative Court, addressed a complex legal dispute involving the claimant, MM, represented by his litigation friend Cathrin Istifanous, against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) and the London Borough of Hillingdon. The case centred on the enforcement of an interim relief order initially granted by Andrew Kinnier KC in April 2024, which required the council to provide accommodation with care and support for MM.

Legal Proceedings

The claimant, a national of Niger, had been in immigration detention since October 2023. His cognitive impairments, resulting from a traumatic brain injury, were central to the proceedings. The SSHD argued that the council was responsible for MM's accommodation under the Care Act 2014. The council, however, sought to discharge the interim relief order, arguing that MM had no urgent care needs.

Judicial Review and Interim Relief

The court considered whether the interim relief order should be continued. The initial order mandated that the council provide accommodation pending the judicial review's outcome. The judge found that there were serious issues to be tried against the council, particularly regarding their assessment of MM's needs under the Care Act 2014.

Arguments Presented

The claimant's counsel argued that the council's decision was unlawful, failing to consider MM's imminent needs upon release from detention. They contended that the council's assessment did not adequately weigh medical expert opinions or the well-being principles outlined in the Care Act. The council countered, maintaining that MM's behaviour, including incidents of arson, justified their stance.

Decision of the Court

Deputy High Court Judge David Pittaway KC ruled in favour of the claimant, enforcing the interim relief order. The judge determined that the balance of convenience favoured MM, highlighting the importance of his liberty and the need for appropriate accommodation to facilitate a bail application. The court dismissed the council's application to discharge the order.

Implications for the Parties

The court's decision underscored the legal obligations of local authorities under the Care Act 2014, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals with complex needs. The ruling also highlighted the challenges faced by councils in providing suitable accommodation for individuals with a history of criminal behaviour.

Future Considerations

The case remains ongoing, with further judicial review proceedings anticipated. The court directed that any future case management should consider the involvement of the Court of Protection, given the claimant's cognitive impairments and potential deprivation of liberty issues.

Conclusion

This case illustrates the intricate balance courts must maintain between individual rights and public safety. It serves as a reminder of the legal protections afforded to vulnerable individuals and the responsibilities of local authorities in assessing and meeting their needs.

Learn More

Explore essential areas of UK employment law, including contracts, workplace policies, and discrimination.