Legal action
Challenging the Home Secretary’s review of the way payments are calculated for asylum seekers
Published: 6 March 2019
Last updated: 7 May 2019
What countries does this apply to?
Case details
Protected Characteristic | Age, Sex |
---|---|
Types of equality claim | Discrimination arising from disability |
Court or tribunal | Court of Session (Inner House) |
Decision has to be followed in | England, Scotland, Wales |
Law applies in | England, Scotland, Wales |
Case state | Concluded |
Our involvement | Intervention (section 30 of the Equality Act 2006) |
Outcome | Other |
Areas of life | Health |
Human Rights law | Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 5: Right to liberty and security, Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence |
Case name: R (Nyamayaro and Okolo) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
An asylum seeker lost 30 per cent of her financial support after the Home Office changed how it calculates payments. She raised a Judicial Review, which was unsuccessful. She appealed. We intervened in the case because we were concerned that the Home Secretary hadn’t given enough consideration to the impact on human rights or equality laws.
Legal issue
Is the amount of asylum support payable discriminatory following the Home Secretary’s review of the way payments are calculated?
Background
The claimant was an asylum seeker and single mother of three children.
A change in the Home Office methodology for calculating financial support for asylum seekers meant her payments were reduced by 30 per cent.
She raised a Judicial Review to challenge the Home Office. We intervened in the case but she was unsuccessful. She was given permission to appeal the decision.
Why we were involved
There are around 45,000 asylum seekers in the UK. They are entitled to very minimal support and the changed method of calculating their support had potential to leave many even worse off.
We were concerned that the Home Secretary had not properly considered equality laws or asylum seekers’ human rights and wanted to make sure that O and others weren’t being discriminated against.
We used our powers to intervene in the case in the Court of Session (Inner House), arguing that the Home Secretary had not paid enough attention to protecting human rights or to the public sector equality duty. This requires all public bodies to consider the need to eliminate discrimination.
What we did
We used our powers to intervene in the case, arguing that the Home Secretary had not paid enough attention to protecting human rights or to the public sector equality duty. This requires all public bodies to consider the need to eliminate discrimination.
What happened
Despite the woman's case being unsuccessful, the court agreed that the PSED plays an important role in preventing discrimination.
Who will benefit
Increased awareness of the duty will encourage judges to give PSED more thought and in future could help anyone who is a victim of discrimination by a public body.
Date of hearing
Date concluded
Page updates
Published:
6 March 2019
Last updated:
7 May 2019