AC-2025-LDS-000036 - [2025] EWHC 2641 (Admin)

The Claimant’s third Ground of challenge is that the Defendant breached Section 6 (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of her violation of the Claimant’s procedural and substantive rights under Article 8 of the ECHR. For the purposes of these proceedings, Mr Holborn told me the SSHD accepts that Article 8 is engaged insofar as the accommodation decision is concerned. He was concerned to point out that for the purposes of that decision the SSHD had taken the Claimant’s statements about his living circumstances at face value and that I would have to do the same if I were to undertake a proportionality assessment. He was clear that the SSHD has not investigated matters and that I should make no findings which could bind the SSHD in connection with the outstanding immigration decision for the Claimant, and that no concessions are made in relation to the factual basis which will inform the outstanding immigration decision.

Most of the argument on this Ground was directed to how I should undertake a proportionality assessment, which would only arise if I had otherwise found the decision making process to be proper and the decision not otherwise open to challenge. Given my findings on Grounds 1 and 2 it is unnecessary for me to carry out a proportionality assessment, and having considered the matters carefully, I do not consider it necessary for me to address the competing arguments as to the extent of any Article 8 interference, as to whether less intrusive measures were available or as to the applicability of S117A and S117B Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on the particular facts of this case.