High Court judgment, November 2024

November 21, 2024

Another NRPF High Court judgment handed down on 21 November 2024 (a week after the hearing on 13th/14th Nov).

You can find the full judgment here.

It’s a mixed bag. The judgment and related policy guidance updates may make the Change of Conditions application process more difficult, particularly for applicants who are reliant on third party support.

The good news is that the court declared the Home Office’s system for deciding ‘Change of Conditions’ applications unlawful, finding that it breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the Home Office “does not have an adequate system in place to reduce, to a reasonable and proportionate minimum, the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment.” This echoes the Court of Appeal judgment from April 2024 which stated that processing times of 2 to 4 months do not “sit properly with dealing with an application from someone who is at immediate risk of falling into such a state of extreme destitution that their rights under article 3 are about to be breached”. This will hopefully prompt some change to decision-making timeframes and make it easier to speed up processing of individual applications, depending on the applicant’s circumstances (although a PAP or JR may unfortunately still be necessary). You can read more on that element of the judgment here:

What the judgment means for the claimants:

SAG – no quashing order, but the family had already been granted recourse to public funds prior to the hearing.
BPB – won on both grounds, based on the individual decision. The HO were ordered to reconsider the decision within 7 days of the judgment, and the family were subsequently granted recourse to public funds on 28/11/24.
LG – claim dismissed on both grounds. We will consider how we can support LG to submit a fresh CoC application and her other options.

What the judgment means for Change of Conditions casework:

The Home Office updated its policy guidance on 19/11/24 to include a section called ‘The applicant is financially supported by a third party’ (see summary of the updates/changes here). The updated guidance increases the onus on applicants to explain and evidence why third party support is insufficient or will end.
The judgment neither clearly endorses nor objects to the practice of sending ‘requests for further information’ (RFIs); we think this process could be improved substantially but the judgment doesn’t reflect this despite some of the arguments having been aimed at addressing it.
A previous judgment had stated: ‘it would generally be in the best interests of the child for there to be access, if necessary, to public funds’. This current judgment makes clear that – to the extent that arguments are based on the welfare of children – applicants need to show why lifting the NRPF condition would be in a child’s best interests (i.e. what difference it would make). We note that the government’s current strategy to target child poverty may be helpful in doing so, as it clearly highlights: ‘Growing up in poverty not only affects children’s wellbeing and opportunities during childhood but also the opportunities and experiences they have throughout their lives’ including in terms of health outcomes and educational attainment, with ‘wider economic and social costs for us all’. A letter from a children’s professional (e.g. a school support worker) re the child(ren)’s struggles/needs may also assist.
If you are an advisor or organisation making Change of Conditions applications, we would welcome a conversation about the casework implications of the judgement – please contact us if we are not already in touch.
You can read more about the judgment and its implications here.