Immigration rules: extending domestic violence protection to refugees (R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
The wife of a refugee was granted temporary leave to remain in the UK. When domestic violence forced her to leave her husband, immigration rules meant she was no longer eligible for indefinite leave to remain. Had her partner been a British citizen or had settled immigration status, she would still be eligible for indefinite leave to remain under the Home Office’s domestic violence concession. However, the concession did not apply to partners of refugees. The woman unsuccessfully challenged the rules in the Court of Session (Outer House), and brought an appeal to the Court of Session (Inner House).
NHS regulations require most non-EU citizens to pay up to 150 percent of the cost of healthcare treatment. A man who was being treated for cancer challenged this in the courts, arguing that the regulations did not comply with equality laws.
Challenging the Home Secretary’s review of the way payments are calculated for asylum seekers (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.
Challenging the ‘two-child limit’ rule (R (on the application of SC and CB and their children) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 provides that child tax credit and its replacement universal credit will not be payable to any 3rd or subsequent children in a family born after 6th April 2017 (subject to some exceptions). This is known as the ‘two child rule’.
SC and CB each had a baby after 6th April 2017 and do not receive any tax credits for those children.
Does planning policy discriminate against Gypsy/Roma/Traveller people who have stopped travelling due to age and disability? (R (Lisa Smith) v SSH, CLG and (2) NWLDC and Amos Willshore (Interested Party) and four interveners)
We intervened in this case to seek to protect the rights of Gypsies and Travellers who have ceased to travel, because of age or disability, not to be discriminated against.
Full case name:
R (Lisa Smith) v (1) Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and (2) North West Leicestershire District Council and Amos Willshore (Interested Party) and four interveners:
- Equality and Human Rights Commission
- National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups
- Friends Families and Travellers London Gypsies and Southark Travellers Action Group