23 Jul Significant four-day trial to begin in High Court challenging the use of RAF Wethersfield as asylum accommodation

Four asylum seekers challenging the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s use of RAF Wethersfield as asylum accommodation are set to have their cases heard at a four-day trial in the Royal Courts of Justice from 23-26 July 2024.

The asylum seekers were granted permission at a case management hearing on 27 February 2024 to proceed with their claims to trial. They were selected as “Lead Claimants” by the High Court after dozens of claims were issued by asylum seekers at the site complaining of unlawful treatment. The outcome of the trial is likely to have a substantial impact on the Secretary of State’s running of mass asylum accommodation sites across the UK and impact thousands of other asylum seekers who have been accommodated at these sites since July 2023.

The use of RAF Wethersfield as asylum accommodation has been highly controversial. On 12 July 2023, the Home Secretary began accommodating asylum seekers at the repurposed site, initially planning to transfer up to 1,700 asylum seekers to RAF Wethersfield. Clearsprings Ready Homes are contracted by the Home Office to manage the site. NGOs and local advocacy groups have highlighted that the conditions do not meet basic standards for humane living, often exacerbating the trauma and vulnerability of asylum seekers. The site has experienced mass protests, racial harassment, fighting, self-harm and suicide attempts. The Claimants have complained of inadequate support, poor and dirty living conditions, inadequate healthcare and restrictions on movement. They have provided evidence to suggest that there is a hostile and inadequate regime at Wethersfield. The former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (“ICIBI”) raised alarm bells to the Home Office in December 2023 and January 2024 voicing grave concerns following his inspections of Wethersfield.

Although the Home Secretary accepts that RAF Wethersfield may not be suitable for individuals who have suffered torture, human trafficking, and other serious forms of violence, or who have serious mental health problems, our clients’ evidence suggests these groups of individuals continue to be transferred to the site by the Home Secretary.

Three of the Lead Claimants, represented by Deighton Pierce Glynn and Gold Jennings Solicitors, have challenged the use of RAF Wethersfield to house asylum seekers on six grounds, including that the Secretary of State has failed to provide a dignified standard of living and that the conditions and regime at Wethersfield is discriminatory and breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. They argue that the Home Office has failed to protect asylum seekers from racial violence and harassment and that the Secretary of State lacks adequate procedures for screening asylum seeker vulnerabilities before deciding to transfer individuals to mass accommodation sites, despite agreeing that it may cause vulnerable individuals harm to be accommodated in RAF Wethersfield.

These claims follow criticism of the Home Office by the High Court in 2021 for unlawfully detaining asylum seekers at Napier Barracks and not having an adequate system in place to ensure vulnerable asylum seekers are not transferred to military sites. The Claimants argue that despite the Court’s decision in NB & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1489 (Admin), the Home Secretary continues to make the same mistakes by failing to operate an adequate system to ensure that individuals who are not suitable to be accommodated at military sites are appropriately identified and not transferred there.

Emily Soothill, solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn said:

“RAF Wethersfield is woefully inadequate as accommodation for vulnerable asylum seekers; as has been the Home Office’s management of the site. Our clients, like many others, have already endured immense hardship and trauma, and placing them in such unsuitable and undignified conditions, without any adequate assessment of their needs, has significantly exacerbated their suffering. It is imperative that asylum seekers are housed in environments that offer safety, privacy and access to essential services, not in isolated and substandard disused military sites. The use of RAF Wethersfield is not only inhumane but also impractical and costly, and we urge the new Home Secretary to end its use once and for all.”

 Clare Jennings, Co-Director at Gold Jennings Solicitors said:

“TG is a survivor of trafficking and torture who sought sanctuary in the UK, but within days of arrival, was sent by the Home Secretary to Wethersfield. Despite being identified as a potential victim of modern slavery on his first day at Wethersfield, and many times afterwards, nothing changed until he brought this claim for judicial review. For months TG remained at Wethersfield where his mental health deteriorated due to the undignified and retraumatising prison-like conditions. TG is not alone. Gold Jennings and Deighton Pierce Glynn have represented dozens of men who were survivors of trafficking and/or torture and serious violence or who were too unwell to be at Wethersfield, but who had to endure months of living there in conditions that did not respect their human dignity and that worsened their mental health. For many of our clients who had experienced arbitrary detention, torture and modern slavery, the conditions onsite reminded them of their past trauma. The increasing violence and tension onsite made many of our clients afraid to leave their rooms. Many of our clients experienced a rapid decline in their mental health, with feelings of despair and thoughts of suicide becoming frequent. It was only the threat or instigation of legal proceedings that resulted in them being moved to more suitable accommodation.  The Home Secretary has ignored the complaints of the residents of Wethersfield for too long. We urge the new Home Secretary to stop using Wethersfield and other unsuitable and costly former military sites and vessels to house asylum seekers”.

The Claimants are all anonymised pursuant to Court Order and cannot be identified for legal reasons. The case references are: MN v SSHD (AC-2024-LON-000210); HAA v SSHD (AC-2024-LON-000224); TG v SSHD (AC-2023-LON-003447); and MJ v SSHD (AC-2024-LON-000189). Deighton Pierce Glynn act for two of the Lead Claimants, MN and HAA. Gold Jennings Solicitors act for TG and Duncan Lewis act for MJ.

Invaluable evidence in support of the claim has been provided by Human for Rights Network, Care4Calais, Doctors of the World, Helen Bamber Foundation and RAMA.

Emily Soothill, Unkha Banda, Ahmed Ali, Tabatha Pinto, Evie Oldfield, Sophie Broke and Yashna Patel from Deighton Pierce Glynn are instructed by MN and HAA.

Clare Jennings, Olivia Halse, Elinor Kirchway, Alex Hogg, Rachel Etheridge, Lea Lehouck and Rithiga Rahulotchanan of Gold Jennings Solicitors are instructed by TG.

Counsel instructed to act for TG, MN and HAA are Angus McCullough KC of 1 Crown Office Row, Shu Shin Luh and Sarah Dobbie of Doughty Street Chambers, and Ben Amunwa of 3PB Barristers.

Duncan Lewis are instructed to act for MJ, instructing Alex Goodman KC and Miranda Butler of Landmark Chambers.

Share this story