Source: https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/case-law/uk-r-application-sg-v-secretary-state-home-department-also-known-r-application-k-v
Timestamp: 2019-07-18 07:28:43
Document Index: 491846146

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art. 3', 'UKHL ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ']

UK - R (on the application of SG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, also known as R (on the application of K) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 22 June 2017 | European Database of Asylum Law
R (on the application of SG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 433
Also known as R (on the application of K) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 433
Court of Appeal, Civil Division- Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Gross and Lord Justice Irwin
Delay, Best interest of the child, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions
European Union Law > EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 > Recital (7)
European Union Law > EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 > Article 1
European Union Law > EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013 > Recital (9)
European Union Law > EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013 > Recital (11)
European Union Law > EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013 > Recital (24)
European Union Law > EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013 > Article 1
European Union Law > EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 > Article 24 > 2.
UK - Children Act 2004
UK - Asylum Support Regulations 2000
regulations 9(3)
UK - Asylum Support (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2015
JK v SSHD 22 June 2017 asylum support.docx
The applicant Burundian asylum seeker was a single parent of three dependent children aged 2, 4 and 10. She first entered the UK in 2004; her first asylum claim was refused and she made a fresh claim for asylum in 2010. She was in receipt of asylum support by way of a financial allowance since 2011. In 2015, a team at the Home Office, led by a Mr Bentley, conducted a review of the weekly asylum support payable to child dependants of asylum seekers (the Bentley review) and, based on this review, the Government reduced that support from £52.96 to £36.95. The applicant challenged this decision in the High Court. Her challenge was dismissed and she applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.
1. The language of the relevant domestic and EU legislation (the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Reception Conditions Directive 2003 (RCD)) point to the Government being obliged to provide for the subsistence of children rather than their welfare, notably articles 13.2 and 17 RCD.
2. In relation to the best interests of the child, article 24.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) provides for this to be a primary consideration, but so too does article 18 RCD. The CFREU therefore takes matters no further than the RCD; and article 18 RCD, combined with articles 13.2 and 17 RCD, continues to point to a subsistence rather than a welfare level of support. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, apart from article 3, is not incorporated into UK law and, in any event, takes matters no further. Nor are matters taken any further by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (which provides for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discharge her functions in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK) or the accompanying statutory guidance ‘Every Child Matters’.
3. It was reasonable for the Government to conclude that the previous amount of asylum support payable to child dependants of asylum seekers was in excess of the level required by the RCD, based on the Bentley review’s reasoning that ‘economies of scale’ were available to such families. The Bentley review had had regard to the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. It was not necessary for a two-stage approach to be adopted, whereby the child’s best interests were considered first; rather the child’s best interests could be considered as part of a holistic analysis. The Government had complied with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s interpretation of the child’s best interests as a threefold concept: a substantive right, an interpretative principle and a rule of procedure. It was compatible with the RCD and within the Government’s province to exclude recreation and toys from the essential living needs for which it provided asylum support, as it only needed to comply with a subsistence standard and as there was a range of support available for free, although the Court regretted the exclusion of toys.
4. Article 8 ECHR takes matters no further.
5. Provided that the Executive has complied with the RCD and not acted irrationally or unreasonably, the assessment of whether something is an essential living need or not is a matter for the Executive and not for the Judiciary.
As a postscript, the Court observed that the delay in dealing with the applicant’s case was deeply unsatisfactory and of real concern.
The decision of Flaux J in R (on the application of SG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2639 (Admin) was upheld.
‘The Bentley Review’
UK Border Agency and Department for Children, Schools and Families, Every Child Matters: Change for Children: Statutory guidance to the UK Border Agency on making arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children: Issued under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (Office of the Children’s Champion, November 2009)
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3 para. 1)’ (29 May 2013) UN Doc CRC/C/GC/14
UK - R (on the application of Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38, [2002] 1 WLR 2956
UK - R (on the application of SG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2639 (Admin)
R (on the application of Refugee Action) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1033 (Admin)
UK - R (on the application of JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16, [2015] 1 WLR 1449
UK - Poshteh v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2017] UKSC 36, [2017] 2 WLR 1417