An eight-year-old British boy who was forced to sleep on the streets with his migrant mother, has won a landmark case against the Home Office after it ‘unlawfully’ refused them benefits.
The High Court has ruled that elements of the ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) policy denying migrant families access to the welfare system are unlawful. The ruling will offer a significant lifeline to families struggling to make ends meet during the coronavirus pandemic who are not entitled to receive state support.
The judges heard that the young boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons and was known as W in court, has lived in extreme poverty for most of his life. The court was told that he had been forced to move schools five times and had become street homeless with his mother.
His mum, known as J, had plunged into debt and suffered from severe anxiety after being denied access to state support. The NRPF policy was introduced in 2012 by then Home Secretary Theresa May under the so-called ‘hostile environment’.
As J was a foreign born citizen, the policy meant she was blocked from receiving the same support that helps other low-earning parents survive, including child and housing benefits, or tax credits.
It means thousands of migrants who have been legally permitted to live and work in the UK due to family connections cannot access state help.
Top judges ruled today that the extent of deprivation the boy and his mother faced as a result of the policy breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment.
For all the latest news and updates on Coronavirus, click here.
The judges said that aspects of the policy must be amended so it is clear for case workers to know in which circumstances they must not impose the NRPF or lift it.
A detailed judgment and order are set to follow, which will outline the steps the Home Office needs to take to comply with the ruling.
The Unity Project, a charity supporting families facing destitution as a result of NRPF which supported the challenge, said the ruling would help many families particularly during lockdown.
Project co-ordinator, Caz Hattam, said: ‘Even before the pandemic, this policy was trapping working families in the most abject poverty, forcing them into debt, and unsafe, insecure housing.
‘Since the Covid-19 outbreak, their situations have become even more dire and desperate.
‘We provided a wealth of evidence of how children’s lives are being blighted by this policy, and we welcome the judges’ recognition that their families must be given access to the welfare safety net to prevent them falling into destitution.’
Adam Hundt, partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, the law firm bringing the case, said: ‘We and many others have been telling the Home Office for years that this policy is causing immeasurable, irreversible damage to so many people, but particularly children like our client.
‘The Home Office refused to listen and ignored all the evidence they were shown, so it has now been left to the courts to confront the truth, which is that the policy breaches human rights law.’
A Home Office spokesperson said: ‘The court’s ruling today was not on the principle of the no recourse to public funds policy, it was on the clarity in the policy for applicants who are seeking to have the no recourse to public funds policy lifted.
‘The Home Office notes the courts judgment and that its full reasons will follow. We will provide submissions in response.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
