Freedom from Torture & Anor, R (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Claimants seek to challenge the Secretary of State’s amendments to the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy contained in Version 11, published on 12 February 2024, and repeated in Version 12, published on 27 March 2024, and Version 13, published on 4 June 2025. These amendments were made before the change of Government on 4th July 2024. The Claimants contend that they involved the removal of long‑standing protective provisions for survivors of torture, trafficking and other serious violence without consultation, without proper regard to equality duties, and without adequate inquiry into the impact on a vulnerable cohort of asylum seekers.

The Claimants are UK registered charities who provide specialist support to survivors of torture and trafficking (who are referred to variously as “clients” or “patients” by the Claimants) and represent their interests in their policy and campaign work.

Freedom from Torture (“FfT”) is a specialist organisation providing clinical, welfare and medico‑legal services to survivors of torture who are seeking protection in the United Kingdom. It was formerly known as “the Medical Foundation”. It has operated since 1985 and delivers its services through national centres located in London, Glasgow and Manchester. Its clinical work is organised into two principal branches: a clinical rehabilitation service and an independent Medico‑Legal Report (“MLR”) service, both falling within the organisation’s Clinical Directorate.

FfT’s clinical rehabilitation service provides assessment and treatment for mental and physical health conditions commonly experienced by survivors of torture, including PTSD, depression, anxiety and chronic pain. Treatment is delivered by a multidisciplinary team comprising psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, and welfare advisers. The services offered also include the Legal Advice and Welfare Service (“LAWS”), which provides immigration, welfare and housing advice to clients receiving treatment. The majority of clients present with multiple and severe traumatic experiences. Treatment may last up to two years. In early 2024, 99% of clients undergoing treatment had a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) diagnosis.

The MLR service prepares medico‑legal reports for use in asylum and related proceedings when instructed by legal representatives. It operates independently from the rehabilitation service but may draw on clinical assessments relevant to a client’s presentation and history. Both the clinical and medico-legal functions are regarded within the organisation as contributing to survivors’ rehabilitation needs.

Due to the severity of its clients’ health conditions and the importance of continuity of care, FfT’s role extends to identifying the accommodation needs of those in treatment or undergoing assessment. FfT considers secure, safe and private accommodation, in particular access to a single room and proximity to treatment centres, to be necessary to support effective therapy and to prevent deterioration in mental health. Its clinicians and welfare advisors routinely provide letters outlining clients’ accommodation‑related needs to the Home Office via Migrant Help, a charity providing independent advice and guidance to assist people seeking asylum in the UK.

FfT contends that alongside its clinical role, it has, for more than two decades, been regarded by the Home Office as an expert stakeholder in the development and revision of asylum support accommodation policy. The organisation has been consulted directly and through the Asylum Strategic Engagement Group (“SEG”) asylum support subgroup which the Home Office identifies as a consultative body for updated policies and operational guidance relating to asylum accommodation. Its expertise has been reflected historically in specific policy provisions relating to dispersal, room‑sharing and the handling of medical evidence. These provisions, some dating back to 2000, recognised FfT’s expertise in assessing the needs of torture survivors and were incorporated into successive versions of the Home Office’s asylum accommodation policies.

Thus, in summary, FfT says that it plays a dual role: it provides specialist clinical and welfare services to survivors of torture and has historically contributed technical expertise to the Home Office on matters relating to the accommodation needs of this group, informing both individual casework and the development of relevant policy.

The Helen Bamber Foundation (“HBF”) is a specialist organisation that provides clinical, therapeutic, welfare and medico‑legal support to survivors of torture, human trafficking, and other severe forms of ill‑treatment. Established in 2005, its remit is broader than that of FfT, as it supports individuals who have experienced a range of extreme abuse, including but not limited to torture. HBF works with highly vulnerable asylum seekers who frequently present with complex physical and psychological needs arising from their past experiences. It has only one treatment centre, which is in London.

Since its inception, HBF contends that it has operated as an expert organisation consulted by the Home Office on matters concerning the treatment and accommodation of survivors of torture and trafficking. From 2006 onwards, the Home Office expressly recognised that the same policy protections that applied to FfT’s clients, particularly regarding dispersal, room‑sharing, and reliance on clinical expertise, should apply equally to HBF’s clients, and HBF was incorporated into the relevant policy frameworks.

HBF has participated, alongside FfT, in the Asylum SEG support subgroup. Through this forum, HBF has provided clinical insight, raised concerns about policy operation, and contributed to the development and refinement of Home Office asylum‑support guidance over many years.

The HBF’s clinicians and support staff have historically supplied the Home Office with assessments of clients’ welfare and accommodation needs, including the need for single‑room accommodation or proximity to treatment services. The Home Office has previously recognised HBF’s expertise by incorporating into policy a principle that where HBF identified specific accommodation requirements, caseworkers should not seek further clinical justification or refer cases to Home Office Medical Advisers. These provisions formed part of the policy framework for more than a decade.

Like FfT, HBF contends that it plays a dual role: it provides specialist care and support to survivors of torture and other severe abuses, and it has supplied expert clinical and operational input into the development of Home Office accommodation policy affecting these groups. Its involvement alongside FfT reflects the Home Office’s longstanding practice of engaging with specialist organisations whose work provides insight into the needs and risks experienced by vulnerable asylum seekers.

The Claimants, relied on evidence from:

The Defendant relied on two witness statements from Jason Büültjens (a Home Office official), principally his statement dated 8 August 2025.

The Defendant also provided internal Home Office emails from the period October to December 2023. This disclosure included “read outs” and notes of meetings between Home Office policy staff and ministerial teams.

Permission to apply for judicial review on all grounds was granted by an order of Deputy High Court Judge David Pittaway KC dated 10 April 2025, with a separate costs capping order made on the same date. The grounds are, in summary, as follows:

The following issues were agreed:

Did the SSHD have a duty to consult with FfT and HBF in respect of the policy changes to room-sharing and dispersal affecting their patients, prior to the publication and implementation of those changes in Version 11 of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy arising as a result of:

Has the SSHD breached the EA 2010 section 149 in respect of the policy changes implemented in Version 11 of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation?

Has the SSHD breached the EA 2010 section 149 by maintaining the policy changes in Versions 12 (27 March 2024) and 13 (4 June 2025)?

Did the SSHD breach her Tameside duty of inquiry to inform herself of the potential impact of the policy changes on survivors of torture, trafficking and other serious forms of violence prior to the publication and implementation of the policy changes under challenge in Version 11 of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy and the decision to maintain those policy changes in Version 12 and Version 13.

The hearing took place over two days on 18 and 19 of November 2025. It was not possible for the Claimants to complete their reply on all matters, and they asked to do so in writing.

On 21 November, the Defendant disclosed draft versions of Version 11 of its Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy under cover of a letter explaining why these documents had not previously been disclosed. There was also a fifth supplementary witness statement from Sian Pickard, a lawyer at the Home Office, explaining why and where redactions had been made.

On 26 November, the Defendant replied by letter to queries which had been raised by the Claimants in respect of the further disclosure. The letter confirmed that “All the material changes affecting the Claimants’ patients appear to have been made between 11 December 2023 and 29 December 2023.” The Defendant reserved her position in relation to a right of response in the event that the Claimants raised points which were not properly the subject of a reply, whether in respect of the further disclosure or otherwise.

The Claimants provided a written reply dated 3 December 2025. It ran to 19 pages and prompted a response from the Defendant, on 10 December, to the effect that it went well beyond the appropriate boundaries of a reply and sought to reinforce points made in opening. The Defendant pointed out that the written reply made only passing reference to the further disclosure so that its length could not be explained by the need to deal with the additional documentation. The Defendant further observed that the Claimants had asked the court to take into account “numerous policy announcements that have been made over the last four weeks” without identifying what was referred to or how it was to be taken into account.

On 13 January 2026, the Defendant provided an Equality Impact Assessment of the same date. That was followed by the publication of Version 14 of the Allocation of Asylum policy on 22 January.

On 16 February 2026, the Claimants’ filed written submissions in relation to the most recent EIA (“January 2026 EIA”) and Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy version observing that the Defendant had not given any indication as to whether she intended to rely on the January 2026 EIA and policy version nor what, if any, regard the court was to have to it in preparing its judgment. The Claimants asked for an extension of the relief sought to Version 14 and the January 2026 EIA.

On 27 February, the Defendant submitted that the matters raised by the Claimants went to remedy, if that became relevant, and that she did not propose to make further submissions unless required to do so by the court. The Claimants had reserved their position in relation to a response to further submissions from the Defendant, if they were made. Having considered the additional post-hearing material, I did not ask for further submissions from the Defendant.

The provision of support and accommodation to asylum seekers is governed principally by Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“IAA 1999”), supported by the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (“2000 Regulations”) and the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005 (“2005 Regulations”).

Under section 95(1) IAA 1999, the Secretary of State has a power to provide support, including accommodation, to asylum seekers who are destitute. Section 98 provides the same power pending a decision as to whether to provide support under section 95. A person is deemed destitute, pursuant to section 95(3), if they do not have adequate accommodation, the means of obtaining it, or the means of meeting their essential living needs. Where an application is made and the Secretary of State determines that the applicant is eligible, Regulation 5 of the 2005 Regulations requires that support be offered, thereby converting what is expressed as a discretionary power into a duty to provide accommodation.

The accommodation provided must be “adequate for the needs of the supported person and his dependants” (see section 96(1)). Accommodation is ordinarily allocated on a “no-choice” basis and in areas where there is considered to be a ready supply, typically outside London (see section 97(1)). However, the statutory scheme expressly provides that this “no‑choice” principle does not prevent consideration of an individual’s personal circumstances. That qualification appears both in section 97(1) itself and in Regulation 13(2) of the 2000 Regulations, which provide that the no‑choice rule “shall not be taken to prevent” the Secretary of State from accommodating an asylum seeker in light of their particular circumstances.

Special protections apply in respect of “vulnerable” asylum seekers. Regulations 4(2) and 4(3) of the 2005 Regulations impose a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to take into account the special needs of persons who have been subjected to torture, rape, or other serious psychological, physical or sexual violence when providing accommodation. These provisions thus identify survivors of such experiences as a category of vulnerable persons warranting specific consideration.

Taken together, the statutory framework provides that while the Secretary of State enjoys broad discretion in allocating no‑choice accommodation, she must ensure that accommodation is adequate, must consider personal circumstances, and must specifically consider the special needs of vulnerable asylum seekers, including survivors of torture and trafficking.

Alongside the statutory framework, the Secretary of State has for many years issued guidance to caseworkers on the allocation of asylum accommodation. Since the inception of the asylum support scheme in 2000, this guidance has recognised that asylum seekers may have differing accommodation needs arising from past trauma, physical or mental ill‑health, disability or other vulnerabilities. I now turn to the history of the development of that guidance and the role played by the Claimants.

The background to the interactions between the Claimants and the Home Office was set out in detail in the witness statements of Natasha Tsangarides, in respect of each version of the Defendant’s accommodation policy, identifying relevant changes, and the extent to which FfT and HBF were consulted. She summarised the overall purpose of the interaction with the Home Office from the Claimants’ perspective:

“...the Home Office use various terms to describe instances of consultation, including “engagement”, “discussion”, or “negotiation”. We have always proceeded on the basis that the purpose of all of these interactions, however described, is the same, i.e. for the Home Office to obtain the Foundation’s views on potential material policy changes to asylum support policy which impact on our clients, and to inform its decision on whether to make or modify those potential changes.”

The relationship developed gradually, beginning in the late 1990s, during parliamentary debates on the IAA 1999, when the government acknowledged the special needs of torture survivors. The then Parliamentary-Under Secretary for the Home Office, Lord Williams of Mostyn, stated in the House of Lords:

“A small number of asylum seekers require specialist services to address conditions which result from torture. I pay tribute to the very fine work of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Where it is clear that someone needs specialised services which cannot be delivered other than through a body of that sort, and the location of that body does not fit in with our normal cluster arrangements, we shall consider the possibility of finding accommodation adjacent to those services. It is a limited number of cases, but that does not make the point any less important.”

Following the introduction of the National Asylum Support Service (“NASS” - the previous name of the part of the Home Office responsible for overseeing asylum support arrangements) in 2000, the Home Office issued Policy Bulletin 19, the first formal acknowledgement in Home Office guidance of the particular accommodation requirements of torture survivors. The purpose of the Bulletin was stated in its opening paragraph:

“The purpose of this instruction is to assist caseworkers in dealing with requests from applicants who are/will be attending the Medical Foundation”.

In relation to dispersal away from London and the South East, it provided:

“Where accommodation has been requested, and the reception assistant has made a referral to the Medical Foundation for an assessment of either the main applicant or a dependant (see Annex A), NASS must give careful consideration to deferring dispersal – ie maintaining the applicant(s) in emergency accommodation or providing temporary accommodation in London - until the Medical Foundation has assessed his/her case.”

Where the Medical Foundation made a decision as to whether to accept an asylum applicant for treatment then:

“NASS must consider the Medical Foundation decision as part of the assessment process.”

Dr McColl’s evidence as to how FfT’s assessment operated was:

“The clinical teams in each centre review all clients referred for treatment at the intake stage. They consider whether the referral is within FfT’s remit and whether we have the capacity to offer the services required. If a client is in remit and we have capacity to offer the services they need, we will offer an assessment. Unfortunately, due to capacity and practicalities with accessing our treatment centres, we are unable to assist all survivors of torture who need treatment and are referred to us. Where we do not proceed to assessment, we endeavour to signpost individuals to more appropriate services. Of the 1,020 referred in 2023, we were able to offer 222 people an assessment”.

Version 2 of Policy Bulletin 19 introduced a further section in relation to the special accommodation requirements of Medical Foundation patients:

“Asylum seekers who are accepted for treatment by the Medical Foundation may have special needs that affect the type of accommodation they require. The MF has advised that, where such requirements come to light during the initial assessment, they will indicate them on the referral form (Annex A) under the section “Special Accommodation Needs (if any) ....as a general rule, the majority of Medical Foundation patients have significant difficulties in sleeping, and should not be placed in shared accommodation if at all possible” and “Ideally… should not be placed in full board accommodation”.

Dr Bonnet’s report explained that:

“Common mental health conditions in asylum seekers and refugees include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), complex PTSD, depression, and anxiety disorders. There are higher rates of psychosis than in the general population. Mental health conditions are often co-morbid (more than one mental health condition occurs at the same time). The higher rate of mental health conditions and associated suicidal behaviours, self-harm and harmful substance use increases risk of death by accident or suicide. There are higher rates of physical health conditions which negatively impact mental health and a lack of access to health care impacts prevention, early intervention and treatment of mental health conditions. A recent systematic review and meta analysis of 26 published research studies from 2003-20209 found that adult asylum seekers and refugees have high and persistent rates of PTSD and depression, which can persist for many years after displacement. The study finds that ‘PTSD and depression in refugees and asylum seekers appear to be more prevalent than in the general population. According to data from the World Mental Health Surveys, lifetime prevalence in the general population is 3.9% for PTSD and 12% for any depressive disorder, compared to our findings of 31% for PTSD and 31.5% for depression’. The UK Mental Health Foundation review of research finds that asylum seekers and refugees in the UK are ‘more likely to experience poor mental health including higher rates of depression, PTSD and other anxiety disorders’”.

In relation to accommodation needs she said:

“I have described above how, in order to begin to recover from a traumatic experience, a person needs to be in an environment in which they feel safe and secure. This can best be achieved by being accommodated in a single room, or in self-contained accommodation. Conversely, a lack of privacy can cause a general decline in mental health with worsening mood, anxiety, PTSD specific symptoms, including disturbed sleep, and increasing thoughts of self-harm and suicide.

A torture survivor may feel the need to hide their body from others, particularly if they have visible scarring. They may fear being asked what happened to them, or how their scars were obtained. A person who has been sexually assaulted may fear being in a state of vulnerability with others, for instance partially clothed and asleep. A person with strong avoidance symptoms related to PTSD may need to avoid contact with others altogether. A survivor of torture who is LGBTQ+ may have particular concerns about being required to share a room, especially if they have been harmed in relation to their gender or sexuality.

A lack of privacy can exacerbate poor sleep patterns and in turn lead to a further deterioration in mental health. A person with PTSD, depression or other mental health problems might find that their sleep worsens as a result of having to share a room with any others. This will be particularly true if they do not feel safe when sleeping and if they are unable to engage in behaviours which they previously carried out to increase their sense of safety, for instance sleeping with a light on.”

Although correspondence with the Home Office from the turn of the century could not be located, the terms of Policy Bulletin 19 plainly support the Claimants’ case that it must have been drafted with input from FfT, since it broadly ensured that those referred to or treated by FfT could expect dispersal to be deferred and would not be required to share bedrooms where that was possible.

These early provisions in Policy Bulletin 19, which remained extant until early 2014, formed the foundations of what later became known as the Dispersal Provision and the Single Room Provision encouraging caseworkers to defer dispersal until assessment or to maintain applicants in suitable locations and a single room, recognising that many applicants suffered severe sleep disturbances and should not be placed in shared rooms. These provisions were subsequently extended to HBF’s patients.

In her witness statement Dr McColl explained how this worked in practice:

“With regards to the Dispersal and Single Room provisions, to ensure that the policies were correctly applied to our clients, we would write short letters to Migrant Help, explaining that the individual was a client of FfT and should not be dispersed during assessment and/or accommodated in a shared room. The letters for clients in treatment were similarly short. ...These letters would be sent by clinical administrators if a client was in assessment, and the LAWS welfare advisors if a client was receiving treatment at FfT. In some cases the information would be sent in an email rather than on letterhead. It was not necessary to include any clinical content in this correspondence; we simply needed to cite the policy protections that applied to our clients. Because the letters and emails did not contain any clinical content, they could be sent out very quickly without the need for clinician input.”

Between 2004 and 2014, the Home Office engaged in periodic consultations with FfT and, following its establishment in 2005, HBF, regarding proposed modifications to the Policy Bulletin. Increasing pressures on the asylum accommodation estate in London appear to have been the primary driver for the Home Office seeking changes to the Policy Bulletin’s dispersal provisions over this period.

In September 2004, according to Ms Tsangarides (the correspondence having been lost), the Home Office proposed a “more limited arrangement” in which FfT clients would only be accommodated in London when essential for their welfare, suggesting others could travel to London or receive treatment elsewhere. However, this change was not implemented because the Home Office opted to draft a new Asylum Instruction on dispersal, and the Policy Bulletin remained unchanged. In 2006, the Home Office formally agreed that HBF clients could also rely on the protections of the Policy Bulletin.

In 2009, the Policy Bulletin was unexpectedly removed from the Home Office website, prompting FfT to raise concerns. The Home Office confirmed, in response, that the policy remained in operation and provided a written assurance that FfT would be consulted before the publication of any new Asylum Instruction. Mr Hugh Ind, the then Strategic Director of Asylum, wrote to FfT’s Chief Executive, Simon Carruth, on 14 September 2009 saying:

“UKBA confirmed the Policy Bulletin 19 on dispersal effectively still operates in practice. UKBA will publish a new instruction and we will consult with the Medical Foundation first. Elaine and Leanne will meet to talk about dispersal in more detail so Medical Foundation can understand how this works in practice better and UKBA can better understand the extent to which Medical Foundation presence in the regions has boosted capacity...Liaison on these issues will be in parallel with the Helen Bamber Foundation”.

Mr Carruth’s detailed reply of 5 November 2009 contains the following concluding paragraphs:

“Following our meeting on 4 September, a team from the Medical Foundation met with Ian Cheeseman to discuss our system for preparing medico-legal reports. Our understanding was that these discussions would continue and that at some point in the future the UKBA would share with us and the Helen Bamber Foundation (and other NGOs working on asylum law and policy) its proposals for a new Asylum Policy Instruction covering the medico-legal report services provided by these two organisations.

We were therefore extremely concerned to learn that a legal representative was recently advised by a case owner that the UKBA is now operating a ‘new’ policy ‘not yet written, but being implemented anyway’ according to which, on a case by case basis, decisions may be taken on an asylum claim notwithstanding the fact that the person has been accepted for pre-assessment by the Medical Foundation. This runs completely contrary to the Asylum Policy Instruction on the Medical Foundation which provides that, except in cases where the case owner decides to grant asylum, ‘all cases that have been accepted for pre-assessment by the Medical Foundation will be placed on hold pending the outcome of the pre-assessment, as long as evidence of the appointment is provided in writing’.”

Consultations on replacing the Policy Bulletin began in February 2010. The Home Office requested data on FfT’s clinical operations and proposed a “phased approach” to relocate clients receiving less frequent treatment outside of London in order to free up space for new arrivals. FfT proposed that the Dispersal Provision be triggered at the point at which a referral was accepted. By email of 8 February 2010 the Home Office requested, amongst other things, that FfT outline its “wish list” of provisions for the new instruction it was developing:

“Elaine asked MF to develop a wish list for UKBA to consider. Wish list to explain what MF is ideally looking for in the new Asylum Instruction including in relation to:

• What should be the trigger event for blocking dispersal

• MF timeframes for responding to referral including consultation with referrer, decision on referral (including communication of this to referrer), offer of assessment appointment, undertaking of assessment

• Circumstances in which we would agree it is acceptable for someone to be moved outside London (say 2 hours away) with travel to MF appointments paid for by UKBA

• Spectrum of options re. type of accommodation - self-contained as well as other types of accommodation

• Context of service availability in the regions where MF has a presence”.

These discussions appear to have been paused subsequently so that the parties could focus on other policies, but resumed in September 2011. The Home Office reiterated the need to alleviate pressure on London accommodation by reaching agreement on circumstances where FfT clients could be housed outside the city. It was agreed that the Home Office’s retained Medical Advisor would not assess FfT cases; a concession that was the origin of the “Medical Advisor Provision” found in later policy documents. While the Home Office committed to “redrafting the concession” (i.e. the Policy Bulletin) based on these discussions, a scheduled follow-up meeting in November 2011 did not occur, no redraft was provided, and the existing Policy Bulletin remained in force.

In November 2013, the Home Office announced to the Asylum SEG support subgroup its intention to revise and consolidate various asylum support documents, including the Policy Bulletin. In December 2013, a Home Office representative informed FfT that central government budgets could not accommodate the costs of London housing, indicating a desire to use the SEG subgroup to hear the voluntary sector’s case for London accommodation. By February 2014, the Home Office clarified that while it was not altering dispersal policies, it was reviewing the cases of applicants currently housed in London to ensure they were in line with existing policies.

By email of 2 April 2014, Zoe Harper, the then Law and Policy Officer at FfT, wrote to Ms Helen Earner, the Deputy Director responsible for Dispersal and Routing at the Home Office commenting:

“We were encouraged by your presentation at the NASF Asylum Support Group in relation to protecting the exceptional cases criteria and by your assurance that the Home Office is not seeking to redefine policy on dispersal. You will be aware that the protection against dispersal from London where the clinical services of both organisations are centred ensures that survivors of torture and other forms of serious harm are able to access the specialist treatment they require to rehabilitate the damaging physical and psychological effects of the ill-treatment they have suffered.”

However, she also raised concerns that clients were increasingly being dispersed from London before their clinical assessments or during their treatment, without prior engagement with FfT regarding clinical capacity at its regional centres. A subsequent meeting took place in July 2014, during which the Home Office acknowledged the specific needs of FfT and HBF clients and the necessity of protecting their access to therapeutic support, while continuing to emphasise the ongoing pressures on London accommodation.

A decade of consultations and operational discussions under Policy Bulletin 19 concluded in December 2014, when the Home Office promogulated a new policy document.

On 4 December 2014, the Home Office published Version 1 of the “Dispersal – Accommodation Requests Policy,” which officially replaced Policy Bulletin 19. The new policy stipulated that while dispersal away from London and the South East remained the standard procedure, caseworkers were to give “careful consideration” to deferring the dispersal of individuals who had an appointment or warranted an assessment by FfT and HBF. It also maintained a Single Room Provision, indicating that as a general rule, FfT and HBF patients should not be placed in shared rooms, female patients should not be placed in mixed-sex accommodation, and full-board accommodation should ideally be avoided to prevent triggering institutional trauma.

However, the policy formalised a process requiring asylum seekers in Home Office accommodation who wished to receive FfT and HBF treatment to first consult a General Practitioner (“GP”). It tasked the GP with considering the asylum seekers needs, determining if local NHS services were sufficient, and arranging a referral to FfT and HBF only if specialist treatment was deemed strictly necessary. Significantly, the Home Office published Version 1 without consulting FfT and HBF, which remained completely unaware of the new policy until a slightly amended Version 2 was published on 21 January 2015.

The discovery of Version 2 triggered an immediate response from FfT. On 29 January 2015, Andrew Keefe, FfT’s National Director of Clinical Services, wrote to Alison Samedi, the Head of Asylum Policy, expressing “serious consternation” that a policy directly affecting their therapeutic services had been developed and published without any engagement or formal communication. Under the subheading “Lack of consultation” Mr Keefe observed that:

“We are concerned by the lack of formal communication or consultation with Freedom from Torture with regard to proposed changes to support arrangements that directly affect the provision of our therapeutic services to survivors of torture.

The Home Office provided an assurance to Freedom from Torture that the organisation would be consulted before any proposed amendments to Policy Bulletin 19. That agreement is set out in a letter from Hugh Ind (then Strategic Director of Asylum at UKBA) to the Foundation dated 14 September 2009 following verbal confirmation of the same at a meeting of 04 September 2009.

[...]

As a separate matter, we would also draw your attention to the fact that access to specialist treatment services provided by the Helen Bamber Foundation, to which Policy Bulletin 19 also applies, are given no consideration in the above document.

We therefore urgently request that the Home Office withdraw this document from circulation and consult appropriately with Freedom from Torture on its dispersal and accommodation policy, reinstating Policy Bulletin 19 in the interim, so that any policy may operate effectively to ensure that survivors of torture are able to access the specialist therapeutic and rehabilitative care that they need.”

Mr Keefe criticised the GP referral requirement, arguing it was based on a flawed understanding of healthcare access which would actively prevent survivors from receiving care. He explained that forcing survivors to be assessed by a GP undermined FfT’s own self-referral process and failed to account for the fact that GPs often struggled to readily identify the complex physical and psychological sequelae of torture.

For the purpose of the present proceedings Dr Bonnet’s report gave a detailed explanation of the limitations on what could, realistically, be expected from GPs operating within the National Health Service (“NHS”) when dealing with traumatised victims of torture.

As Mr Keefe had observed the HBF had been entirely omitted from the new policy, despite the longstanding agreement that the provisions applied equally to their clients.

On 19 February 2015, Ms Samedi responded, stating that the lack of consultation was not deliberate but the result of a broader initiative to simplify asylum support guidance following an inspectorate report. She stated:

“In most material aspects the text in these sections is identical or very similar to the text in Policy Bulletin 19, which as you say Hugh Ind previously agreed would remain in place pending consultation on any change in the policy.”

She suggested that the only significant change was the removal of an instruction requiring FfT patients to be housed in London, which the Home Office felt was outdated given FfT’s expansion into regional treatment centres.

Notwithstanding these observations, Ms Samedi offered a temporary concession, agreeing that the Home Office would continue seeking London accommodation for FfT clients being treated in London “pending further consultation”. She also agreed to arrange an urgent meeting with FfT and HBF to resolve the issues raised, suggesting that “It would be ideal if a completely re-written document could be agreed quickly” or the Home Office could make immediate, quick changes, such as removing the problematic language regarding GP assessments.

Following the immediate fallout from Version 2 of the policy, on 20 March 2015, Ms Samedi and Simon Bentley, representing the Home Office, met with FfT to consult on policy revisions. HBF was unable to join the meeting due to short notice.

The Home Office agreed to a number of policy provisions that FfT had been advocating for, including:

On 1 May 2015, Sonya Sceats, then Director of Policy for FfT, submitted a combined markup of proposed changes on behalf of both FfT and HBF saying:

“Thanks very much for the helpful discussion about dispersal issues on 20 March and for sending through a Word version of the policy for us to work from.

We have fed back our discussion to colleagues at the Helen Bamber Foundation and worked with them to develop a consolidated set of proposed changes for you and Simon to consider (see attached).”

These proposed changes included explicit wording that clients “should never be required to share bedrooms with strangers” and that it was “not appropriate” to refer their cases to the Home Office Medical Advisor regarding accommodation suitability.

Following this submission, there was then silence from the Home Office. FfT’s records show no further correspondence regarding the policy revisions for over a year.

The consultation process resumed on 7 June 2016, when Mr Bentley provided FfT and HBF with a new redraft of the policy by email attachment, internally identified as “version 3”. Mr Bentley apologised for the long delay and noted that while the text and structure had changed, the essence remained substantially the same as the drafts they had previously discussed. He said:

“Section 4 looks at requests made on the basis that the person is being treated or being considered for treatment by FFT or HB. You’ll see that the text and structure is different to the various draft versions we’ve circulated between us – but I think the essence is substantially the same. But let me know what you think.

You’ll note also, that I’ve cut down some of the text that outlined the history/background/services your organisations deliver. I think some of that is important, as a way of giving some context to the decision maker, but I’d prefer the document to be focussed on what caseworkers should do in the given circumstances. Feel free to amend/change this part of the text as you feel appropriate, but I’d rather the overall length remains about the same.”

Section 4 of the Policy draft is headed “Accommodation requests from those who are being assessed for treatment or receiving treatment from Freedom from Torture or the Helen Bamber Foundation”. This Version 3 draft in fact incorporated many of the Claimants’ suggestions from 2015, including language stating that FfT and HBF clients should not share bedrooms with strangers “as a general rule, and wherever possible,” and adopting the Medical Adviser Provision.

On 17 June 2016, Ms Sceats responded to the Home Office with further suggested revisions, noting that the Claimants were “really pleased to see many of the improvements we discussed last year reflected in the draft”. A few days later, on 22 June 2016, the Home Office circulated this revised policy to the other non-governmental members of the Asylum SEG support subgroup, inviting their wider feedback and proposals by early July. The letter stated: “The updated draft does not include the text at section 4 because the Home Office is still consulting FFT/HB separately on that part” (my emphasis).

It does not appear that Version 3 was ever promulgated, but on 24 August 2016, the Home Office published Version 4 of the policy. With this release, the document was officially renamed from the “Dispersal – Accommodation Requests Policy” to the “Allocation of Accommodation Policy”.

Version 4 introduced a protective “Room Sharing Provision,” stipulating that “[a]s a general rule, and wherever possible, persons receiving treatment by either organisation should not be required to share bedrooms with strangers”. It also contained the “Medical Adviser Provision,” stating that if the Claimants requested self-contained or special accommodation for clinical reasons, caseworkers should generally accommodate those needs without asking for detailed justifications or referring the case to the Home Office Medical Adviser. In addition, the policy required that any requests to move individuals from accommodation deemed unsafe or unsuitable by the Claimants should be handled on an urgent basis.

Version 5 of the Allocation of Accommodation policy was published on 7 March 2017, with no substantive changes to the provisions protecting FfT and HBF clients.

Between 2017 and 2020, FfT made complaints to the Home Office that torture survivors were being wrongfully dispersed outside of London and forced into shared bedrooms. These were essentially complaints that the policy was not being followed (on some occasions) and individual cases and example case studies, to make good this contention, feature in the correspondence over the entire period.

A meeting took place on 14 July 2020 between the Home Office, FfT, HBF, and other NGOs. During this meeting, the Home Office stated that the policy breaches were occurring because accommodation providers were misinterpreting or misunderstanding the information regarding individuals’ specific needs. The Home Office indicated that it was drafting new guidance for asylum caseworkers and accommodation providers to resolve communication and allocation issues.

On 27 May 2021, the Home Office published Version 6 of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy, which introduced a new chapter setting out criteria to identify individuals unsuitable for accommodation at the former military barracks at Napier. The addition of this guidance followed litigation (NB and Ors v SSHD [2021] EWHC1489 (Admin)), concerning the use of Napier barracks, which had resulted in the disclosure of previously unpublished suitability criteria for such sites.

Because the sleeping arrangements at Napier consisted of communal dormitory-style rooms, clients being assessed or treated by FfT and the HBF were already protected from placement there by the policy’s existing Single Room Provision. This provision remained unchanged in Version 6. The Claimants were not consulted on the new version, and their evidence was that they would not have expected to be consulted on specific changes which were inapplicable to their clients.

For other survivors of torture or trafficking who were not FfT or HBF clients, Version 6 established suitability criteria explicitly identifying categories of people who were “not suitable” for Napier. These included individuals awaiting decisions on modern slavery or trafficking claims, those with complex health needs, and those defined as vulnerable under the 2005 Regulations, such as disabled people and survivors of torture, rape, or serious violence, who had an individual evaluation confirming their special needs. Because Napier dormitories typically housed 14 people, the Claimants viewed the criteria as an implied acceptance by the Home Office that the identified vulnerable categories were generally unsuitable for room-sharing.

Version 6 also introduced a minor geographical amendment regarding the dispersal of FfT and HBF clients, changing the designated area from “zones 1-6 in London” to “travel zones in London”. However, FfT’s evidence was that in practice, clients continued to be accommodated within zones 1 to 6, as very few common dispersal locations fell outside of zone 6.

Later that year, in November 2021, the Home Office responded to ongoing concerns from NGOs by establishing the “G7 Escalations Inbox”. This provided a direct email channel for legal representatives and NGO stakeholders to escalate urgent accommodation issues that remained unresolved after exhausting the standard routes through the Home Office’s main asylum support contractor, Migrant Help.

On 28 October 2022, the Home Office published Version 7 of the policy, renaming the document to the “Allocation of Asylum Accommodation Policy”.

The most notable change in this version was the strengthening of the Single Room Provision, offering greater protection to clients of FfT and HBF. Previous iterations of the policy contained caveats, stating that these clients should not share bedrooms with strangers “as a general rule, and wherever possible”. Version 7 removed these caveats entirely, establishing a more directive rule that individuals receiving treatment from either organisation “should not be required to share bedrooms with unrelated adults”. This amendment brought the Room Sharing Provision closer to the specific language FfT had proposed during the consultations in May 2015.

Additionally, Version 7 expanded the scope of the policy’s suitability criteria so that it applied to all communal dormitory forms of accommodation, rather than limiting it solely to the Napier barracks. Because of the newly reinforced Room Sharing Provision, clients being assessed or treated by FfT and HBF remained fully exempt, as a matter of policy, from being placed in any of these communal dormitories.

On 23 December 2022, the Home Office published Version 8 of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy. This version primarily added guidance regarding support for individuals living in private accommodation. The specific provisions protecting individuals being assessed or treated by FfT and HBF were unchanged. The Claimants were not consulted on this update; again, their position was that they would not have expected to be consulted given the nature of the changes.

The following summer brought significant operational shifts across the asylum accommodation estate. On 12 July 2023, the Home Office began using RAF Wethersfield, a former military barracks, with the intention to house 1,700 single adult male asylum seekers there. Around this time, the Home Office also announced “Operation Maximise,” a broader initiative which aimed to increase the use of shared rooms.

Coinciding with the opening of RAF Wethersfield on 12 July 2023, the Home Office published Version 9 of the policy. This update explicitly stated that the policy’s “suitability criteria” applied to accommodation at ex-Ministry of Defence (MoD) sites, vessels, Napier barracks, and room-sharing arrangements at other accommodation sites.

Version 9 acknowledged that, due to the Home Office’s legal obligation to provide accommodation to prevent destitution, there might be occasions where individuals were placed in shared rooms before a screening interview had been conducted. However, the policy directed that when information was available, Home Office Accommodation Providers were required to consider the suitability criteria to determine if room sharing was appropriate.

The specific guidance regarding FfT and HBF clients remained unchanged in Version 9, so that they continued to be exempt from room-sharing and large-site placements under the Single Room Provision. Nevertheless, the rollout of “Operation Maximise” led to several operational breaches requiring the Claimants’ clinicians and caseworkers to intervene and request that the Home Office apply the Single Room Provision to protect their clients.

Version 10 of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy was published on 9 October 2023. This update clarified the guidance regarding the suitability criteria for accommodation at ex-Ministry of Defence sites, vessels, Napier barracks, and room-sharing arrangements at other accommodation sites. For clients of FfT and HBF, the critical safeguards, the Single Room Provision, Medical Adviser Provision, and Dispersal Provision remained unchanged. Because these protections remained intact, FfT and HBF clients continued to be explicitly exempt from room-sharing and large-site placements, and again the Claimants did not expect to be and were not consulted on this update.

Notwithstanding the policy position the period surrounding the introduction of Version 10 was characterised by complaints to the Home Office over operational and implementation failures.

Issues of this sort were initially raised during a September 2023 meeting of the SEG support subgroup. NGO stakeholders warned the Home Office that its own “FAQs” document distributed to asylum seekers about room-sharing failed to explain any of the policy’s exemptions, leaving vulnerable individuals unaware that they might be protected from sharing. Stakeholders also criticised the Home Office for allowing private accommodation providers to act as the primary decision-makers regarding an individual’s suitability for room-sharing. The minutes of the meeting record specific reference to the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy in answers to questions about which individuals were unsuitable for room sharing. The focus of the exchanges were about categories of vulnerable asylum applicants not covered by the single room concession afforded to the Claimants’ clients.

These systemic concerns escalated significantly at a subsequent SEG support subgroup meeting in December 2023. NGOs presented reports of desperate asylum seekers queuing to plead with hotel staff not to force them into shared rooms due to their individual circumstances. FfT presented specific examples of cases where their protected clients were forced into shared rooms, requiring FfT caseworkers to spend hours on the phone with Migrant Help. NGOs also highlighted that the primary assessment form (the ASF1) was inadequate, containing only a tick-box for suitability criteria that failed to capture the necessary information to protect vulnerable individuals.

In response to these operational complaints and NGO feedback, the Home Office defended its processes. It maintained that accommodation providers were the correct “first point of call” for managing allocations and that service users were “encouraged to make sharing room choices themselves,” while any refusals to move individuals out of shared rooms should simply be escalated via Migrant Help. The Home Office requested that the NGOs provide case studies to help identify what was going wrong in a “collaborative approach”.

The Claimants’ evidence was that there was a marked reduction in the Home Office’s overall engagement with the SEG support subgroup, noting that they were frequently not being consulted on changes in advance and that their queries were increasingly going unanswered. This breakdown in the operational application of Version 10 culminated on 8 February 2024, when subgroup members sent a formal letter to the Home Office reiterating their concerns, in the event just days before the Home Office introduced changes in Version 11.

On 12 February 2024, the Home Office published Version 11 of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy. The Home Office introduced what were, on any view, significant changes (and were described as such within its own EIA) without giving any advance notice or consulting FfT, HBF, or the Asylum SEG subgroup. The covering announcement said:

“A further update to the guidance has now been made to remove the strict criteria preventing certain categories of individuals in receipt of asylum support from being accommodated at large sites and/or room sharing in the wider accommodation estate. It has been replaced with a discretion to consider exceptional circumstances, and to ensure the suitability of individuals is assessed on a case-by-case basis and that accommodation meets individuals’ needs.”

The Claimants’ case is that this amounted to a fundamental departure from over 20 years of established consultative practice between the Home Office and specialist NGOs.

Version 11 changed, and on the Claimants’ case, drastically reduced protections for survivors of torture by removing the long-standing Single Room Provision and the Medical Adviser Provision. Instead of FfT and HBF clients being exempt from room-sharing and large accommodation sites, caseworkers were instructed to assess their suitability on a “case-by-case basis”. The policy also allowed the Home Office to seek second opinions from its own Medical Advisers rather than accepting the Claimants’ clinical expertise. The Dispersal Provision was weakened, with the guidance stating that deferring an individual’s dispersal to keep them near a treatment centre was “expected to be rare”.

In addition, Version 11 shifted the evidential burden onto the individual asylum seeker. The revised suitability criteria stated that vulnerable people “may not be” (rather than “are not”) suitable for room-sharing, requiring individuals to provide “verifiable expert or professional evidence” of an “individual evaluation” to avoid being placed in shared rooms. FfT heavily criticised this change, arguing that the required evidence, such as comprehensive healthcare records or letters from GPs, was, for all practical purposes, impossible for most asylum seekers to obtain quickly due to NHS waiting lists, digital literacy barriers, and the profound difficulties survivors face in disclosing trauma during short primary care appointments.

The fallout was immediate. During a SEG support subgroup meeting on 11 March 2024, stakeholders confronted the Home Office about the lack of consultation and the detrimental impacts of the new policy, asking to see an equality impact assessment which the Home Office confirmed had been carried out but which it had not shared or published. The Home Office defended the changes, arguing that not all victims of torture have the same needs and a case-by-case assessment was necessary. When challenged on why they had bypassed consultation, the Home Office representatives suggested that such consultative processes were “not collaborative or supportive,” relying on the pace of work and the need to take ministerial instructions as further reasons for not consulting. The exchanges in which these reasons are recorded in the minutes are illuminating as to whether the Claimants had an expectation of prior consultation. FfT’s representative was Sile Reynolds, identified as “SR”, the Home Office representatives included Miv Elimelech, referred to as “ME”, whilst Kat Lorenz (see above) was also present as co-chair and is referred to as “KL”:

“SR, returning to the issue of getting a second opinion on the medical evidence, pointed out that caseworkers were not clinical experts so unless extensive support and guidance was provided to them, she anticipated that poor decisions would be made. This had already happened with the adults at risk procedures and with asylum casework. The foundations could help provide support to caseworkers.

She explained that voluntary sector organisations could have helped with all of these points had the Home Office come to them before creating the policy. Now organisations would have to monitor the implementation and feed that back. This was why consultation was so important. She expressed surprise that such a fundamental change was made to policy without consultation or even the courtesy of letting the foundations know about the change.

Whilst the policy might help the Home Office achieve a certain policy objective, it would increase the administrative burden on everyone. This was a significant, intentional change that would increase the risk that people would fall through the cracks because people won’t be able to provide evidence. It also increases the workload of the foundation. Previously, being a foundation client meant that the person was identified as being vulnerable without having to disclose that they were suicidal etc. Seeing an equalities impact assessment would enable an understanding of the Home Office’s thinking and to explain the justification for shifting away from a preventative approach to a risk approach.

ME thought the Home Office was being told off. SR explained that what she said was merely reflecting the level of surprise on the part of her organisation that this change was introduced with no consultation. ME explained that the Home Office had not wanted to consult because these processes were not collaborative or supportive. She asked that SR see things from the Home Office perspective: they take instructions from ministers and need to work fast. SR responded that this was exactly why voluntary sector organisations wanted to see the equality impact assessment. It would allow organisations to understand the Home Office’s perspective better.

KL interjected that in the past, these meetings were co-operative. But in the last year there has been a shift. Everyone in this meeting understood that the Home Office was responding to ministerial directions but talking in advance of significant changes would be a better way of working together. She thought SR was only expressing disappointment and alarm at the shift away for the preventative model. Now it feels like the voluntary sector needs to identify people falling through the gaps. There has also been a concerning dip in the quality of decisions made by the Home Office recently. This change was worrying because it would generate a lot more work and put individuals are risk of harm. That is was what SR was explaining.”

Following this meeting, FfT’s CEO, Ms Sceats, contacted Daniel Hobbs, the Home Office’s Director General for the Migration and Borders Group, expressing the view that the voluntary sector felt “let down” and requesting a collaborative resolution. However, on 27 March 2024, the Home Office published Version 12 of the policy, retaining the changes introduced in Version 11 as did Version 13 in June 2025 notwithstanding judicial findings in R (TG & Ors) v SSHD [2025] EWHC 596, that elements of the suitability criteria were unlawful due to failures under the PSED.

By mid-April 2024, FfT reported that their clients were already suffering the real-world consequences, with traumatised individuals being moved without adequate notice and forced into shared rooms. FfT and HBF initiated legal action, sending a Letter Before Claim to the Home Office on 18 April 2024, and issuing a protective claim for judicial review on 10 May 2024.

The Home Office has disclosed internal emails from October to December 2023. These shed very little light on the rationale for the absence of consultation with the Claimants on Version 11. In fact, they suggest that there was an intention to consult stakeholders and do not explain why that approach was reversed.

In mid-October 2023, the Home Office’s Accommodation and Transformation Policy team set out their intention to engage with external stakeholders and NGOs to help review accommodation sites and inform any upcoming changes to the guidance. Several Home Office staff members specifically suggested consultation with FfT and HBF on proposed changes.

On 31 October 2023, a member of the Home Office policy team, Shahida Ilahi, wrote an email in the following terms:

“I don’t think there is a risk of individuals ‘shoehorning’ themselves into the process or abusing the system. I have spoken to Matt Nestling and he has confirmed what I already knew about these organisations. Both organisations are medical experts for torture and highly recognised experts in that field. Any individual referred to them has to undergo a threshold test – it’s not just everyone referred to them who is accepted. There is a triage process which is followed and some level of evidence is provided to them during the referral process. There is quite a detailed form which is completed by the referring representative which is considered by the organisations carefully.

HB provide a bespoke training package for medical professionals who work with them and the specialism of both organisations is not one which is found within the NHS – for example, they look at the cause of the scars and don’t really consider credibility – although if an account is so far-fetched and incredible then this would be raised. The reports provided by these organisations can be distinguished from others.

[…]

HB and Freedom from Torture are considered to be on a par with the Salvation Army and their reports need to be given sufficient scrutiny - they are definitely respected NGO’s and making any changes to the guidance without any prior consultation with them could be reputationally risky. This is particularly relevant if we are depriving individuals of the specialism of these organisations which is funded by legal aid (access to justice argument). Not only do they provide medico legal reports but they provide support and recovery services in line with their areas of speciality. They are 2 of the very few organisations who comply with the Istanbul Protocol which you don’t find on a national basis” [my emphasis].

The internal discussions and early policy drafts appear to have focused largely on ministers’ desires to “tighten” suitability criteria for large “pathfinder sites” (like former military barracks) and potential changes to the Dispersal Provision. The disclosed documents contain no mention of any plans to amend or remove the vital Single Room Provision or the Medical Adviser Provision, which were unexpectedly stripped from Version 11.

As Ms Tsangarides noted in her witness statement, these internal exchanges make the Home Office’s later justifications difficult to understand and lie uneasily with the assertion in March 2024, that there was insufficient time and that consultation was too “adversarial”. The disclosed emails show the Home Office had been discussing internally the possibility of consulting the Claimants a full four months before Version 11 was published. The Defendant’s response to this is to argue that it was well known that the Home Office was under intense pressure at the time.

The Ministerial Submission seeking approval to implement Version 11 of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy articulated the reason for change as:

“To mitigate against the risk of individuals abusing the system by making unsubstantiated claims of unsuitability, increase the number of individuals suitable for large sites, and reduce reliance on hotels.”

As Ms Ilahi had indicated in her October email (above) there was, in her view at least, little risk of those accepted by the Claimants abusing the system in this way. Notwithstanding this, Version 11 did not differentiate between the wider cohort of asylum seekers and those being treated by the Claimants as previous iterations of the policy had done.

When Version 11 of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy was introduced, the Secretary of State relied on an Equality Impact Assessment dated 10 January 2024 (“the January 2024 EIA”). That assessment was prepared to accompany the proposed changes implemented under Version 11, including amendments to the suitability criteria and the shift from category‑based presumptions to a case‑by‑case assessment of accommodation suitability. The January 2024 EIA stated that:

“The Public Sector Equality Duty is being reviewed following the introduction of large accommodation sites and the policy changes to be introduced for the accommodation of potential victims of modern slavery.”

The January 2024 EIA was then provided to Ministers in advance of the publication of Version 11 on 12 February 2024. Under the heading “Allocation of Accommodation Policy” it states:

“Reasons for accommodating people in a particular location may include where that is necessary to maintain continuity of medical treatment or treatment being undertaken with Freedom from Torture and the Helen Bamber Foundation.”

In relation to disability it states:

“Under the policy, large accommodation sites will not be used to accommodate those who have serious mobility problems or for those who have complex health needs including mental disabilities and within the meaning given by the Healthcare Needs and Pregnancy Dispersal Policy at paragraph 4.16. Information on the numbers of such cases is currently not recorded.”

In subsequent litigation in TG v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 296 (Admin), the High Court considered whether the PSED had been complied with when Version 11 was introduced. The Court concluded that the January 2024 EIA did not adequately assess the equalities impacts of the changes made by Version 11, in particular the impact of the amended suitability criteria on disabled asylum seekers. That judgment therefore involved a judicial determination that the January 2024 EIA was insufficient for the purposes of compliance with the PSED at the point when Version 11 was promulgated.

In reaching that conclusion Mould J held [316-319]:

“316.

...the claimants’ contention under ground 3(c) is that the change of policy in version 11 of the Allocation Policy, that asylum seekers with special needs resulting from being disabled, serious mental health problems or otherwise being vulnerable may now be considered suitable for accommodation at Wethersfield, was one that required an assessment of its equalities implications. As I have said, in her evidence on behalf of the defendant, Ms Stratton expresses the same view. She relies upon the Policy EIA for that assessment, which she also says was considered by ministers in deciding to bring in that change to the Allocation Policy published under version 11 on 12 February 2024.

317.

The claimants’ case in the consolidated claim is straightforward. They say that the defendant has not discharged the PSED in respect of that change of policy. She has not made a lawful or rational assessment of the equalities impacts of that new policy.

318.

In my judgment, the claimants’ case is plainly well-founded. The Policy EIA, which is said to have been conducted to assess the impact of the proposed policy changes later given effect in version 11 of the Allocation Policy, simply did not make that assessment. I have set out above the relevant extracts from the Policy EIA. The focus of the assessment carried out in the Policy EIA was evidently on the policy change made by version 10 of the Allocation Policy, in relation to the change in approach to the suitability of potential victims of modern slavery to be accommodated at Wethersfield. Insofar as that assessment considered the impact on disabled persons, it did so on the basis that under the Allocation Policy, large accommodation sites (including Wethersfield) would not be used to accommodate those who have complex health needs including mental disabilities; and that individuals with mental impairments were not considered suitable for such accommodation and “will not be housed at these sites”. The assessment stated that the suitability criteria in the Allocation Policy “will ensure” that asylum seekers who are considered as “not suitable” for such sites will not be moved to them.

319.

The Policy EIA makes no attempt to assess the equalities implications of the change in policy which was then proposed, the effect of which was that asylum seekers who were disabled or had serious mental health issues may henceforth be judged to be suitable for accommodation at Wethersfield provided that their special needs were able to be met at the site. That is a most serious and inexplicable omission, particularly in the light of Ms Stratton’s evidence that the Policy EIA was prepared and submitted for ministers’ consideration precisely to enable the equalities impacts of that significant change in policy to be considered. It amounts to the clearest failure on the part of the defendant to fulfil the PSED. This is not a case in which the question is whether the Policy EIA properly fulfils the defendant’s duty to have due regard to the statutory objectives in section 149 of EA 2010. In this case, the only conclusion I am able to reach on evidence is that the defendant did not attempt to assess the equalities impacts of the proposed policy change later promulgated under version 11. That remains the factual position, since there was no subsequent assessment of the policy change when it was carried forward into the current version 12 of the Allocation Policy.”

Following the judgment in TG, the Secretary of State undertook a further Equality Impact Assessment dated 31 March 2025 (“the March 2025 EIA”). This later assessment examined the equalities implications of maintaining the amended suitability criteria and the case‑by‑case approach, including their potential impact on disabled persons and the mitigations said to be in place. The March 2025 EIA was submitted to Ministers before the publication of Version 13 of the Policy on 4 June 2025, which retained the Amendments introduced in Version 11.