SLF Evaluation Outcome Report 2016 FINAL FINALstrategiclegalfund.org.uk/SLF Evaluation Outcome... · SLF Achievements and Outcomes Evaluation Report 2016 FINAL 6 Section 1: What activity

EsméeFairbairnFoundation,JosephRowntreeCharitableTrust,PaulHamlynFoundation,TrustforLondonandUnboundPhilanthropy

inpartnershipwithMigrationWorkCIC

StrategicLegalFundforVulnerableYoungMigrants

AchievementsandoutcomesinPhaseThree

EvaluationReport

ByCeriHutton

October2016

SLFAchievementsandOutcomesEvaluationReport2016FINAL

2

ContentsABBREVIATIONSUSEDINTHISREPORT...............................................................................................3Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................4

SECTION1:WHATACTIVITYHASBEENFUNDED?...................................................................6OVERVIEWOFPROJECTSFUNDED.....................................................................................................6PROJECTSCONSIDEREDINTHISEVALUATION......................................................................................6TYPESOFACTIVITIESFUNDED..........................................................................................................7

SECTION2:WHATHASTHEFUNDINGACHIEVED?.................................................................9LEGALCHANGEANDCHALLENGE......................................................................................................9Influencingcourtjudgments.................................................................................................9Feedinglegalchallengeswhichothersaretakingforward...................................................9Unearthingnewevidenceanddevelopingnewlegalinsights............................................10

POLICYANDPRACTICECHANGE......................................................................................................12Gettingpoliciesreviewedandrewritten.............................................................................12Improvingpractice..............................................................................................................13Gainingpositiveattentionfortheissues.............................................................................14

POSITIVEOUTCOMESFORYOUNGMIGRANTS...................................................................................15Outcomesandimpacttodateforyoungmigrants.............................................................15Potentialoutcomesofwork‘inthepipeline’.......................................................................16

ORGANISATIONALANDSECTORALBENEFITS....................................................................................17VIEWOFACHIEVEMENTSOVERALL..................................................................................................19

SECTION3:CASESTUDIES....................................................................................................21CASESTUDY1:KEEPINGLEGALAIDFORALLYOUNGMIGRANTS...........................................................21CASESTUDY2:CHALLENGINGSUB-STANDARDLOCALAUTHORITYACCOMMODATIONFORMIGRANTFAMILIESWITHCHILDREN...........................................................................................................................23CASESTUDY3:GETTINGBASICSUPPORTTOOTHERWISEDESTITUTEMIGRANTSWITHOUTSTANDINGCLAIMS25CASESTUDY4:CHALLENGINGNONOTICEREMOVALS........................................................................27CASESTUDY5:MIGRANTSDETAINEDUNDERTHE‘FASTTRACK’SYSTEM...............................................29CASESTUDY6:GAININGTHECHANCETOSTUDYFORYOUNGMIGRANTS..............................................31CASESTUDY7:TRYINGTOGETJUSTICEFORVICTIMSOFTRAFFICKINGINDIPLOMATICHOUSEHOLDS...........33CASESTUDY8:OPERATIONNEXUS.................................................................................................35

SECTION4:KEYFINDINGS....................................................................................................38

APPENDIXA:METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................40

APPENDIXB:INTERVIEWEES................................................................................................41


3

AbbreviationsusedinthisreportARE AppealRightsExhaustedASAP AsylumSupportAppealsProjectCFA ConditionalFeeAgreementDLR DiscretionaryLeavetoRemain isa formof immigrationstatusgrantedtoapersonwhothe

HomeOfficehasdecideddoesnotqualifyforrefugeestatusorhumanitarianprotectionbutwherethereareotherstrongreasonswhythepersonneedstostayintheUKtemporarily.

EP ExpertPanel,theadvisorypanelofexpertsfortheStrategicLegalFund.FNO ForeignNationalOffenderFOI FreedomofInformationGMIAU GreaterManchesterImmigrationandAsylumUnitHCLC HackneyCommunityLawCentreHMRC HerMajesty’sRevenueandCustomsHO HomeOfficeILC IslingtonLawCentreJCWI JointCouncilfortheWelfareofImmigrantsJFKLaw JustForKidsLawJR JudicialReviewLAA LegalAidAgencyLASPO LegalAid,SentencingandPunishmentofOffendersAct2012LCF LawCentresFederationMLP(ILC)

Migrants’LawProject(alegalandpubliceducationprojecthostedbyIslingtonLawCentre)

NGO Non-governmental organisation. In the UK, this usually refers to charities and other non-profitmaking organisations such as social enterprises. It is generally used in this report todenoteacharityornot-for-profitorganisation.

NRM NationalReferralMechanism(aprocessforidentifyingandsupportingvictimsoftrafficking)NRPF NoRecoursetoPublicFundsOCC OfficeoftheChildren’sCommissioner,anagencywhichsupportstheworkoftheChildren’s

CommissionerwhoserolewascreatedbytheChildrenAct2004PCO ProtectiveCostsOrderPIL PublicInterestLawyersPLP PublicLawProjectPRCBC ProjectfortheRegistrationofChildrenasBritishCitizens(currentlyhostedbyAsylumAid)SEN SpecialEducationalNeedsSLF StrategicLegalFund(forvulnerableyoungmigrants)SSHD SecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartmentTPI Third Party Intervention – where a court allows applications by public bodies, private

individuals or companies, or NGOs to make submissions which raise some issue of publicimportance.

UASC UnaccompaniedAsylumSeekingChildreni.e.childrenundertheageof18whoarrivewithoutanyknownguardian

UKBA UnitedKingdomBorderAgencyVOT VictimofTraffickingAcknowledgementsThanksaredue toall thosewhoprovided information (inparticularMigrationWorkCICandTrust forLondon)andwhotooktimeoutofbusyschedulestotalkthroughtheworkandgivetheirviews.


4

IntroductionTheStrategicLegalFundforVulnerableYoungMigrants1(SLF)isafundto“supportlegalworkthatgoesbeyondsecuringjusticeforanindividualandmakesasignificantcontributiontolaw,practiceandprocedurestoupholdandpromotetherightsofvulnerablemigrantchildrenandyoungpeoplemoregenerally.”2TrustforLondontookoverthehostingoftheSLFattheendof2012afteritspilotphase3.Sincethen:

• PhaseTwooftheSLFwasfundedbyTrustforLondonandEsméeFairbairnFoundationwithalegacygrantfromtheDiana,PrincessofWalesMemorialFundandranfromDecember2012toDecember2014

• PhaseThreeoftheSLFwasfundedbyTrustforLondoninpartnershipwithEsméeFairbairnFoundation,JosephRowntreeCharitableTrust,PaulHamlynFoundationandUnboundPhilanthropyandhasrunfromJanuary2015untilDecember2016,orwhenthecurrentfundingpotisspentout.

BothphasesweretakenforwardinpartnershipwithMigrationWork,acommunityinterestcompany(CIC)withaspecialisminmigrationwhichprovidedadviceandadministrationonthegrant-makingactivitiesoftheSLF.SLF support has involved providing small grants (up to £30K) to both NGOs4 and private solicitorspractices.Thesegrantshavefundedbothpre-litigationresearchtoprimeandinformlegalcasesaswellasThirdParty Interventions incourtwhichcandevelopthe law inawaywhichtreatsyoungmigrantsfairly.TheSLFhasalsosoughttosupportandinformgranteestoa limitedextentthroughitswebsite,bulletinsandnetworkingevents5aswellas,since2014,itsarchive6.Therehavebeen twoevaluationsof theSLF thus far.An interimevaluation in2012prior toTrust forLondontakingover theSLFconcludedthat itwasachievingresults though itwastooearly to identifymuchinthewayofoutcomes.AmoreextensiveevaluationoftheSLFwascommissionedinJuly20137whichlookedbothattheoutcomesandachievementsoftheSLFfromtheinceptionofthepilotphasein2011totheendof2013.ItalsolookedatitsmanagementandoperationsandmaderecommendationsforchangestotheSLFwhichwereabsorbedintothenextphaseofitsworkin2014.This third evaluation is more limited in scope and focuses solely on outcomes. Issues relating tomanagement,administrationandthefutureoftheSLFwereseparatelyaddressedintwopapersfortofunderstohelpthemconsiderthenextstepsforthefund.Thisreportthereforeconsiders:

i. ThebenefitsandoutcomesoftheworkwhichtheSLFhasfundedtodateinPhaseThree.ii. Howfartheseindividualbenefitsarecontributingtoanywiderimpactinthefield.iii. Casestudiesofsomeoftheindividualgrantswith,asfaraspossible,indicationsofhowthese

havehadimpact‘downtheline’.Thepurposeof theevaluation is toenable funders andother interested stakeholders to gain a fullerpicture of the range of benefits and outcomes possible from an initiative of this nature. A fullmethodology,includingalistofthoseinterviewed,canbefoundatAppendixA.Thisreportisdividedintofourfurthersections.1 This fund is referred to as the SLF throughout this report. Its original name was the ‘Strategic Legal Fund for Refugee Children and Young People’ which, following a decision to expand its focus, was changed to the ‘Strategic Legal Fund for Vulnerable Young Migrants’. SLF is used as a shorthand for both of these. 2 SLF website: http://www.strategiclegalfund.org.uk 3 The pilot phase was taken forward by Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund which closed down at the end of 2012. 4 Non-governmental organisations. Throughout this report, NGO is used to denote a not-for-profit organisation (normally a charity and/or voluntary organisation). 5 MigrationWork CIC has led on this element of the work 6 Coram Children’s Legal Centre has a received a grant to host and administer the archive on behalf of the SLF. 7 By On the Tin Ltd, published 2014.


5

SectionOneprovidesabriefexplanationofwhichprojectswereselectedforconsiderationduringthisevaluationaswellasabriefoverviewofallprojectsfundedduringPhaseThree.SectionTwodescribesthetypeofoutcomesidentifiedduringthefieldworkandprovidesexamplesfromthedocumentreviewandinterviewstoillustratethese.SectionThree is themain sectionof the report, anddetails eight case studies, providing informationabout their background, the work undertaken which was funded by the SLF and the outcomes andimpactasfarastheyareknown.Theaimofdescribingtheseistohelpfundersinparticulargetasenseofhowworkhas comeabout,where it ‘fits’ in thediscussionsaboutmigration, and seehowwork isprogressedand‘rampedup’bySLFfunding.FinallySectionFourgivesanoverviewofsomeofthekeyfindingsandconclusionsfromtheevaluation.NoteonconfidentialityAsisnormalinevaluativefieldwork,allintervieweesweretoldthattheircommentswouldbereportedbackanonymously.However,thereareanumberofbenefitsoroutcomeswherethefactsofthecasemake it clearwhichproject is being considered. This is unavoidable, and intervieweeswerehappy tohave identifying details, including the name of their organisations if relevant, left in if that seemedappropriate.


6

Section1:Whatactivityhasbeenfunded?

OverviewofprojectsfundedTheSLFhasawarded71grantsfromthestartof itspilotphase inNovember2011untilMay2016.Ofthese,13wereextensionsorcontinuationstoexistinggrants.Eighteenofthese71grantswereawardedduringPhase3(betweenJanuary2015toMay2016)whichincludesfiveextensiongrantsforprojects.Oneoftheseextensionswasforaprojectfundedpriortotheperiod, and four were extensions to work funded during the period. In addition, one project had adecisionpendingasatMay2016.Most of these grantswere awarded for pre-litigation research (14),with four grants helping to fundThirdPartyInterventions(TPIs).Table 1.1: Total value of grants in each category awardedbetween Jan 2015 –May 2016, and theaveragevalueofeachgrant.

Projecttype Numberofgrants Totalvalue Averagevalue

Prelitigationresearch 14 £165,843 £11,846Thirdpartyintervention 4 £42,332 £10,583

Total 18 £208,175 £11,565

Grants were awarded to fourteen organisations or partnerships. Twelve of these were grants tovoluntary organisations (including law centres) and two were grants to partnerships of voluntaryorganisationsandprivatefirmsofsolicitors.Table1.2:GrantsreceivedbysectoraltypeJanuary2015–May2016Grantrecipientsbysector Numberof

grantsVoluntaryorganisation 12Voluntary/privatepartnership 2Total 14Thisrepresentsaslightdecreaseinthepercentageofprivatefirmsfundedthroughthework8identifiedduringthe2013/14evaluationwhichwas30%ofthe32grantsconsideredduringthatevaluation.

ProjectsconsideredinthisevaluationThe focus of the evaluation was on the outcomes and impact of Phase 3 projects. That said it wasrecognisedthat:

• Manyoftheseprojectshadonlyrecentlybeenfundedandthereforetheireffectswouldbeasyetlimitedorundiscernible.

• Theterm‘Phase3’isusedinternallybecauseofthewayfundershavedesignatedfundingbutislargelymeaninglessexternallyasthereiscontinuityfromanapplicantpointofview.

• Thenatureof SLF funding is that itmainly ‘pumpprimes’ interventionswhich thengoon tohaveeffects,oftenunforeseen,‘downtheline’.TothisextentmostprojectsfundedbytheSLF

8 Either in partnership with an NGO or as a sole grant recipient


7

priortoPhase3couldhavehadsomeimpactduringtheperiodunderscrutiny(January2015–May2016).

Given the limited scope of this evaluation it was necessary to draw parameters and so a case studyapproachwas adopted.Case study review involved interviewing grantees andother key stakeholdersandreviewingalldocumentationprovided.EightprojectsintotalwereselectedforscrutinywhichwereeitherfundedduringPhase3(andviewedashavingbeenalreadysignificantintermsoftheiroutcome,or promisedoutcome), orwhichwere fundedprior to Phase3, butwhichhad in someway come tofruitionduringtheperiod.CasestudiesarelistedanddescribedinSection3.Theprojectsthereforeincludedinthisevaluativerevieware:

• ThreePhase3projects(i.e.fundedduringtheperiod)whichwereselectedas‘casestudies’.• Eleven Phase 3 projects (i.e. funded during the period) which were reviewed by examining

documentation provided by the SLF supplemented by any additional views and informationgivenininterviewswithinternalstakeholdersandgrantees.

• FiveprojectsfundedpriortoPhase3whichwereselectedascasestudies.Inaddition, someprojectswerementionedby internal stakeholdersandgranteesduring interviewas‘notable’ projectswhichwere fundedprior to Phase 3 butwere not selected as case studies.Whererelevantthesearementionediftheyaddedtothenarrative.

TypesofactivitiesfundedTheSLFprovidesfundingfor:

• Pre-litigationresearchwhichhelpsindividualsandorganisationsdeveloptheirunderstandingofhowpractices,policiesand lawsarecontributingtodisadvantageanddiscriminationfacedbyyoungmigrantssothatthismay,wherepossibleanddesirable,bechallengedthroughstrategiclegalworkinthefuture

• Third Party Interventions (TPIs) which enable key evidence regarding the impact on youngmigrantstobepresentedtothecourtsbyaninterestedthirdpartyincasesalreadyunderway.

Bothactivitiescaninvolvearangeofdifferenttypesofactivities.ThetypesofworkundertakenduringPhase3fundedbytheSLFincluded:

• Collectingcasestudies: Just forKidsLawcollectedcasestudiesshowinghowcurrent financeregulationswere preventing youngmigrants from going to university:Migrants’ Law Projectshowedhow‘Rule35’9caseswerebeingtreatedindetentiontoshowwhytheDetainedFastTrackneededtobechallenged;AsylumSupportAppealsProject(ASAP)collectedcasestudiestoshowtheinconsistencyofhowfailedasylumseekerswithoutstandinghumanrightsclaims(Article8)werebeingtreatedinthetribunal.

• Conductingresearch:JustforKidsLawresearchedgovernmentpolicyonthebenefitsofhighereducationtoshowthesocialandeconomicbenefitsofsupportingallyoungpeople, includingmigrants, to pursue academic studies; the Project for the Registration of Children as BritishCitizens (PRCBC) isgatheringevidenceboth from individualsandexpertson the requirementforallchildrenaged10+whoapplytobeBritishcitizens10tomeeta‘goodcharacter’test;FLEX(in partnershipwith Leigh Day) have been undertakingwide-ranging research to understandwhyandhowtheprovisionsoftheModernSlaveryActappeartoresultinaprotectiongapforvictimsoftrafficking.

9 Rule 35 of the Detention Services Order 17/2012 makes provision to ensure that particularly vulnerable detainees where ongoing detention would, in a medical practitioner’s opinion, be injurious to their health, are brought to the attention of those who have the power to discharge them through Rule 35 reports. 10 Except those registered as stateless


8

• GainingCounsel’s (i.e.abarrister’s)opinion: Public LawProject (PLP)drafted instructions tocounsel following their initial pre-litigation research into no notice removals; AsylumAid/PRCBC have sought counsel’s opinion on the Secretary of State’s duties and powersrelating to children, the way various legislative provisions interact and the legality of policyguidance and its application; ASAP instructed counsel regarding support to failed asylumseekers.

• Freedom of Information requests: Detention Action submitted 17 FOI requests; PRCBC hasbeen using requests to establish detail of current practice, particularlywhere registration ofchildrenhasbeenrefused.

• Gathering witness statements: Bindmans gathered 596 pages of material showing how the

residence testwoulddisenfranchisemigrant childrenandothers– anexceptional amountofwitnessstatementevidencetoputbeforeaCourt.

• Information-sharing and networking: PLP held a range of meetings with stakeholders

interested in theeffects of thenonotice removals policy;DetentionAction set up a specificonlinegrouptoenablethesharingofinformationaboutcasesandpracticetoinformtheirworkontheDetainedFastTrack.

• Practice monitoring: Detention Action put out a call for information from clients and were

contacted by 157 in the SLF grant period; Coram Children’s Legal Centre put out a call toorganisationsworkingwithclientswithNRPFtofindoutwhatlevelofsupporttheywerebeinggivenwhichhasunearthedhighlyvariableamounts.

TheSLF’sactivitiesalsoincludefundingforinformationexchange,publicityandlearningtakenforwardbyMigrationWorkCICaswellasanarchivewhichCoramChildren’sLegalCentrehostsandadministers.


9

Section2:Whathasthefundingachieved?This section summarisesoutcomesandchangeswhich theSLFhas contributed towards in someway,groupedbytype.

LegalchangeandchallengeThe legal landscape has been affected by SLF-funded work by taking challenges, influencing courtjudgments,preparingthegroundforothersandbyunearthingnewevidenceandargumentswhichwillstandfuturelitigationingoodstead.InfluencingcourtjudgmentsA number of legal challenges have been informed and influenced by pre-litigation research or ThirdParty Interventions where it is clear the SLF-funded work has contributed to the eventual positiveoutcomes.Somekeyexamplesofthisare:

• Detention Fast Track. Theongoing litigation takenbyDetentionAction, representedby theMigrants’ Law Project, resulted in positive judgments at the Court of Appeal and then,subsequently,attheSupremeCourt.TherulingattheSupremeCourtwastofindtheDetainedFast Track rules to be ultra vires (meaning the rules went beyond the authority of thoseresponsible for setting them):a judgmentwhichhasmeant that, since2nd July this year, thedetainedfasttrackhasbeenentirelysuspended.

• ResidenceTest. Bindmanspursueditschallengetotheresidencetest,buildingoninitialpre-

litigation researchwhich provided a solid base for this eventually successful challenge. “TheSupremeCourthasquashedtheresidencetest…….initscurrentform,[thetest]hasbeenfoundtobeunlawful.”

• Fees formigrant studentswithDiscretionaryLeave toRemain (DLR). Just forKids Lawwas

fundedtoundertakeaThirdPartyIntervention,andtheirevidencewascitedbyLadyHalewhogavetheleadingjudgmentinfavourofthestudents.

• Support to destitutemigrants. ASAP took a case to help clarify the support for those with

outstandingArticle8claims,butthecasewasdroppedbytheHomeOffice11justbeforeitwasheard. However the Judge gave a position in her consent order which reflected ASAP’sargument,namely:“‘ConventionRights’includetherighttorespectforfamilyandprivatelifeunder Article 8 of the ECHR and ….. provision of S4 support may in any particular case benecessarytoavoidabreachofaperson’sarticle8ECHRrights.”Thisconsentorderwasthenechoed in a future judgment by the Principal Judge at the Asylum Support Tribunal, whichclarifiedtheprovisionofSection4supporttothosewithoutstandingArticle8claims.

FeedinglegalchallengeswhichothersaretakingforwardInsomecasestheresearchdoneandevidencecollectedishelpingothersinthefieldworkingonsimilarcasesandissues.

• Luqmani Thompson’s scoping of the issue of access to a fair trial on Operation Nexus hasprovidedadetailedanalysisofthepolicy.Theynote:“Theresearch….formsabasisforotherstomove forward, eitherwith researchof their ownor to takepoints inappropriate cases. Intermsoflitigationofourowncases,theprecariousfundingsituationfordeportationcaseshasmeantthattheselectionofcasesavailableforustorunthepointsthatwewantedtohasbeenlimited.”

11 Technically by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD)


10

• Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) did research into the ‘genuine prospects of work test’

(GPOW).ThisarosefromaconcernthatyoungEEAjobseekerswereatriskofhomelessnessasa resultof theway the testwasbeingapplied. The informationandarguments collectedbythemselvesandothersweremadeavailablethroughabriefing12andtheresearchhasproveduseful intakingforwardchallenges.CPAGnotesthat:“Wehaverepresentedsevenappeals inthe First-tier Tribunal involving GPOW arguments, andwe have drafted two applications forpermissiontoappealforadviserstouse.”

• HackneyCommunityLawCentre’s(HCLC)researchonthequalityofaccommodationprovided

todestitutemigrantfamilies isnowbeingquoted inotherchallengestoS17provision13. TheextractbelowdescribeshowBirminghamCommunityLawCentrehasusedHackney’sevidenceandarguments.

HackneyCommunityLawCentrereportresearchintoS17accommodation14AttheDecember2015courthearingtoseekpermissiontoproceedwiththejudicialreview,BirminghamCommunityLawCentre(BCLC)arguedthatSandwellMBC’sdecisiontoplacechildrenandtheirfamiliesinhotels foryearsonendwasunlawful.BCLCspecificallychallengedthesuitabilityofSandwellMBC’sprovision of B&B accommodation, the level of financial support awarded to the families, and theabsenceofapublishedpolicyonhowthe localauthoritydealswithassessingchildrenwhose familieshavenorecoursetopublicfunds.HisHonourJudgeBarkerQCgrantedBCLCpermissiontoproceedwiththejudicialreviewonallthreegrounds.Commenting on how HCLC’s ‘A Place to Call Home’ report came to be used in Williams & ors vSandwellMBC,BCLC’sManagerMichaelBatessaid:“Inthecourseofthelitigation,wewereabletointroduceandrelyonthereportofHackneyLawCentreandHackneyMigrantsCentre–APlacetoCallHome.Thereportaddscolouranddetailtotheissueofchildreninneedwhoaresupportedbylocalauthoritiesandclearlychimeswiththeissuesfacedbyourclients.WehopethatWilliams&orsvSandwellMBCcasewillbringsomemuchneededclaritytotheissueofwhether local authorities should have a published policy on the provision of ChildrenAct services tofamilieswithno recourse topublic funds and force councils to focuson thequality and suitability ofaccommodationprovidedtochildreninneed.”HCLCChairIanRathbonesaid:“The use of HCLC’s ‘A Place to Call Home’ report in the Williams & ors v Sandwell MBC casedemonstrates the importanceof evidence collection and research inwhat is the complicated field ofhousingandhomelessness.Unfortunatelyfundingforsuchworkisnoteasilyfoundwhenitshouldbeapriority to inform local authorities, and the courts if necessary, of what is really happening on thegroundandhowitcanbetackled.”UnearthingnewevidenceanddevelopingnewlegalinsightsThe SLF funds organisations to collect research and think about legal arguments. Such work is anactivity,butitisalsoanoutcome,inthatnewformulationsofargumentsandnewunderstandingsoftheoften tangled issues under scrutiny are gained. Once thatwork has been done, it canmake itmucheasierforthosecomingaftertoseetheirwaycleartochallengeandinfluenceandtoknowwhichtypesofcaseswillstandthebestchanceofsuccess.

12 http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG-Kapow-GPOW-APR2015_0.pdf 13 S17 support is the shorthand term for the support which local authorities have a duty to provide to any family, including destitute migrant families, to meet the needs of a child under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. 14 Extract from HCLC website


11

This isperhapsoneof themost importantbenefitsof theworkaswithout itagenciesareworking tosomeextentblind,oftenonacasebycasebasis.AsonememberoftheExpertPanelputit:“itmeansorganisationson the frontlinecanbecomeempoweredwitha toolofunderstanding lawfulness ratherthanunfairness.”Therewerevariousexamplesofthis:

• ThePRCBC15 atAsylumAid16 is researchinghowthe ‘goodcharacter’ test isbeingappliedtochildrenas youngas10who register forBritishCitizenship.Thiswork isuncoveringnotonlypotentialfailuresbytheHomeOffice(SSHD),butalsofindingouthow‘goodcharacter’isbeingassessed.Itishopedthatthiswillpaveawaytofuturelitigation.

• FLEX has undertakenwide-ranging research to try and identify what the Protection Gap for

victimsoftrafficking(VOT)wasintheModernSlaveryAct.Itwasfeltbythemandothersthatthe rights of VOTwerenot beingprotected, but itwas unclearwhat the ‘way in’was.Afterextensive research they have honed down five specific areas17 which are ripe for futurechallenge.

• Havingevaluated thepilotof theLandlordsChecksscheme18, JCWI is further researching the

‘righttorent’ followingpreliminaryevidencefromthepilotthatchildrenandyoungmigrantsareat serious risk. JCWIhas got SLF funding to“investigateandgather evidenceofunlawfuldiscriminationcausedbytheLandlordChecksscheme”, firstly lookingat theHomeOfficeandhowdecision-making,aswellastheevaluationofthescheme,ishappeninginordertoseeifalegal challenge can be taken there. The research, and the development of these legalargumentsisbothessentialandurgent:theschemeisalreadybeingrolledout.

• LegalServicesAgency inScotlandhas justbeengivenagrant (May2016) to lookathowthe

new Immigration Action is going to be rolled out through Scotland through secondarylegislation. At present the impact on devolved matters has not yet been debated, and LSAsuspects that there are challenges, potentially at a constitutional level, which can be taken.Theyhavebroughttogetherashort-lifeworkinggrouptolookatthese.“[TheSLFhas]givenusagranttobringtogetherlegalexpertsandpulltogetherapaperandmyself,workingonbehalfof ILPA, to start to disseminate some of this knowledge and upskill people to undertakechallenges.WecanbringthatbadlawdowninScotland–that’sreallyexciting.”(Grantee)

• BindmansislookingathowNHSDatasharingmaybedeterringallegedlyillegalmigrantsfrom

registering and accessing NHS services for themselves and their children. It has started tograpplewiththisenormousanddifficultareabyinvestigatingpotential illegalitiesinwhattheHome Office is doing around requesting patient data from the ‘National Back Office’. Theresearch ispainstaking,not leastbecause it requirespersistentpesteringof theHomeOfficeandotherpublicbodiestogettheinformationneededtobuildupanaccuratepictureofwhatisgoingon.Thepotentialconsequencesofmigrantsfailingtoaccessessentialhealthservicesare,atanindividuallevel,profound:“thenightmarescenarioisthataparentdoesnotseekhelpfortheirillchildbecausetheythinktheymightgetreported,andthechilddies.”Butdrawingalinebetweenthatnegativeimpactanddatasharingpolicyandpracticeisrequiringsignificantwork.

• CoramChildren’sLegalCentrehasbeenresearchinglevelsofsupportprovidedtofamilieswith

childrenbylocalauthoritiesunderS17oftheChildren’sAct.“Wesentoutthequestionnairein

15 Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens 16 Asylum Aid is now merging with Migrants Resource Centre 17 For instance, ‘Failure to identify’ (i.e. returning homeless EEA nationals without assessment and ‘Failure to investigate’ i.e. cases in which victims come into contact with the police through arrest or questioning, but are not followed up). 18 No Passport Equals No Home by JCWI, 2015


12

multiple formats and disseminated it to a wide range of partners working with NRPF19families….Wereceived37usableresponsesandhaveprocessedandanalysedtheresults.Theseshowsomeextremelylowlevelsofsupport,aslowas£13perpersonperweek.”

• JustforKidsLawcommissionedresearchshowingtheeconomicvalueofenablingyoungpeople

to attend higher education, and they are keen for others to use this in any future relevantwork.“Wewereclear lookingatthefiguresthatgivinga loanmeantagreater input intothefinancial pot. So it didn’tmakeanyeconomic sense todeny them these loans as if you loanthem £9,000 for three years they get back an extra £100K per year per person.We got thegovernment’sowneconomisttoprovideuswithastatementonthat.Itwasveryhelpfultogetthat.”

• DPGandKalayaanareresearchinghowdiplomaticimmunityisviewedinternationallyinorder

todevelopnewargumentswhichmayhelpvictimsof trafficking indiplomatichouseholds toclaimcompensation.TheyarenowtestingtheseintheSupremeCourt.

PolicyandPracticechangeGettingpoliciesreviewedandrewrittenBoth the research work and the judgments gained in court contribute towards shaping policy.Sometimes thework adds strength to arguments being discussedwith policymakers, sometimes thejudgmentsrequirearevisionofpolicyintheirwake.

• GMIAU’sworklookingathowSection5520wasbeingimplemented21resultedinareport,andthis is being used in policy discussions with the Home Office about the fact that decision-makingdidnottakings55intoaccount.“Werecentlyconcludedalongitudinalsociallegalstudyaspartofanationwideprojectanalysing60casesofunaccompaniedasylumseekingchildren(UASCs)across12lawcentres.Wehadconcernsthatthebestinterestofthechildisnotformingpartoftheasylumdecisionmaking,andwementionedtheGMIAUreporttohighlightthatthisproblemisnotnew.”

• PLP and Medical Justice had challenged the no notice removals policy together previously,

bringingacasechallengingthepolicy,whichresultedinitbeingquashedbytheCourt.Thiswasupheldonappeal.Thepolicywasthenreintroducedinamodifiedform,however,in2014.Thistimealetterbeforeclaimledtothepolicybeingwithdrawnanewandreplacedbyanimprovedversionofthepolicy.Theimprovedversionstill isfarfromsatisfactory,however,andsoeventhough theyhaveobtainedsomepolicyconcessions theyaregatheringevidenceonhowthepolicycurrentlyoperatesinpracticetoconsiderachallengetothenewpolicy.

• Bindmans inputted into a range of policy scrutiny mechanisms during its challenge of the

residence test.Assuch, itwasplayingan important role in informingparliamentandholdingthegovernmenttoaccountfortheimplicationsofthelegislationandpolicyitwasplanningtointroduce.ForexampleitpresentedevidencetotheParliamentaryJointCommitteeonHumanRightswhich ledthiscommitteetoconclude, inDecember2011, that:“wedonotagreethattheGovernmenthasconsideredallgroupsofchildrenwhocouldbeadverselyaffectedbythistest,andwenotethatnoChildImpactAssessmenthasbeenproduced.Suchgroupsofchildrenincludechildrenunabletoprovidedocumentationofresidenceandthosewhoneedhelptogainaccesstoaccommodationandservices.ThereisaparticularproblemintermsofthecomplexityandurgencyofEUandinternationalagreementcases,acknowledgedduringthepassageofthe

19 A person has ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) if they are subject to immigration control and do not normally have the right to work. Public funds include welfare benefits and public housing. NRPF restrictions can affect a wide range of people e.g. people who have overstayed their visa, some EEA migrants and refused asylum seekers. 20 Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Action 2009 requires government and public authorities to carry out their functions taking into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children. 21 Funded prior to Phase 3


13

LASPOBill,butwhichhavenotbeenmadeanexceptiontotheresidencetest.WeareconcernedthattheGovernmenthasnotgivenfullconsiderationtoitsobligationsunderthesecondarticleoftheUNCRC”.

• JCWI’s joint interventionwith theOfficeofChildren’sCommissioner inFebruary2016on the

FamilyMigrationRuleschallengedtheminimumincomerequirementsintroducedin2012.Asaresult, theHomeOffice has agreed to review theGuidance concerning the Best Interests ofChildrenOutsidetheUK.

• AsaresultofJustforKidsLaw’ssuccessfulchallengetothestudentfinanceregulations,BIShas

issuednewruleswhich,aftersomesubsequentpolicylobbyingfromJFKLaw,havereducedthe‘lawfulresidence’periodrequiredtothreeyears.

• A grant in 2013 to Coram Children’s Legal Centre enabled the production by them and the

NRPFNetworkofaGuidanceNoteonlocalauthoritiessupportingchildren.

• Hackney Community LawCentre is looking at how their report into s17 accommodation caninfluencelocalauthoritypolicyandpractice.TheyhaveliaisedwithPLPandBASW22,andtherehas been some interest by cabinetmembers in looking at how to respond to the challengesraisedbythereportatlocalpolicylevel.

• InMay2016,theImmigrationActcameintoforceasUKlawbringingwithitmajorrevisionsof

the immigration system.Many concerns havebeen raisedby human rights bodies in theUKabout aspects of the Act’s provisions which they fear will undermine protection fordisadvantagedmigrantsandincreasediscrimination.23

The Legal Services Agency in Scotland is currently looking at how the Immigration Act isbroughtininScotlandandthisworkhasthepotentialtoinfluencehowtheActisimplementedinotherpartsof theUK.“It’sofpivotal importance: ifwe canbringdownevenpartsof [theImmigrationAct]theUKgovernmentwon’twantatwotiersystem.Soitwill impact inWalesandEnglandaswell. Ifwehadnothadthismoneywecouldn’thavedonethat–wecoulddosomeprobono,butwejustdon’thavethecapacitytodomorethanthat.”(Grantee)

ImprovingpracticeThe trickle downeffect of improvingpolicy should be to improvepractice andultimately the lives ofmigrants.However,aswaspointedoutbyanExpertPanelmember,some legal judgmentsandpolicychange are ‘self-executing’, requiring little further intervention to come into force, whereas othersrequirefurtherinformationandembeddinginpracticeifmigrants’experienceistobechangedontheground.For some of thework funded through the SLF this has been recognised andwork targeting practiceimprovementshasbeentakenforward.Examplesinclude:

• CPAG’sworkonthegenuineprospectsofwork testhas resulted inahigh levelof interest inhow todealwith this complexarea.“Wehavebeen slightly surprisedby thehighnumberofreferralsandrequestsforadvicewehavereceived.Whilethisisencouraging,wehavehadtodevelop a new referral system in order to copewith the influx.” They have held seminars atwhich a litigation strategy has been discussed with practitioners, and have drafted a paperwhich isaimedatwelfare rightsworkerpreparingappealsagainstdecisions that their clientsarenotentitledtoJSAbecausetheyhavenotmanagedtoprovidecompellingevidence.24

• ASAP’s work with Maternity Action (funded prior to Phase 3) produced information about

accessingsupportforpregnantasylumseekerswhichenabledmidwivestobettersupporttheir

22 British Association of Social Workers 23 For one summary of concerns see: http://rightsinfo.org/immigration-act-2016-plain-english/ 24http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/Kapow%20to%20the%20GPOW-v6.pdf


14

clients.InthiscaseASAPdecidednottoproceedtolitigation,butfeelsthepracticegainsweresignificant:“Whatcameoutoftheresearchwasanexpertreportwhichweput intoashorterandmore easy to understand version formidwives.We think that has led to an increase inpeople accessing support. We also did training and general awareness raising amongstmidwivesinthisparticularareaoflaw.”

• TheLegalServicesAgencyknew,when itappliedtotheSLF in2013,that litigationwouldnot

help improve the inconsistent treatment beingmeted out to 16 and 17 year old separatedchildren inScotland.“Wewerestrugglingwith socialworkcommitmentofagroupofpeopleandoneauthorityinparticular.Wecouldn'tgettothemthroughJRoranylegalmeans.SothegrantallowedustodoFOIrequests,wegota legalopinionfromsomebodywhoyoucouldn’tignore. And we had a big splashy event where we embarrassed them and that changedpractice.Wehadbeentryingtodoforthatforthreeyears,butcouldn'tlegally.”

• ASAP have also been ‘spreading the word’ about the clarity gained on accessing Section 4

support fordestitute refusedasylumseekers throughanotherpieceofwork theSLF funded.“Wegotwhatwewantedoutofit,whichwasmoreclarityaboutaccesstoSection4supportonthose outstanding Article 8 claims. We were able to share that with the sector – we sentinformation out to over 600 people workingwith asylum seekers nationwide via the asylumsupportadvicenetwork.”

• DetentionAction ensured that the judgmentswerepassedon to clients andpractitioners as

the challenge to the Fast Track system progressed. “Detention Action liaised with individualrepresentativesandNGOworkerstoensuretheywereinformedabouthowthelitigationcouldbeusedinindividualcases.Forexample,inDecember2014,theyinformedallDetentionActionclientsoftheCourtofAppealjudgmentthatthepolicytodetainpendingappealwasunlawfulandencouragedthemtoseeklegaladvice.Wheretherewereconcernsthattherepresentativewouldnotbeawareoforunderstandhow touse the judgment,DetentionAction spokewiththemdirectlyandsentthemthejudgmentandmaterialspreparedbythelegalteamtoassistineffectively utilising the change to policy for clients.”Detention Action also ran seminars anddisseminatedarangeofothermaterialstoensurethatpractitionersknewaboutdevelopmentsregardingchangestothefasttrackrules.

• TheAIRECentre isproducinganadvocacy toolkit fororganisationswho find themselveswith

clientsfacingremovalsunderOperationNexus.Theyreportthatthereishighdemandforthis.

• JCWI is planningonproducing comprehensive toolkits about the LandlordChecks scheme toensurethatNGOs,lawfirms,migrantandhousingorganisations,localauthoritiesandtenantsunderstand their rights and responsibilities under the scheme. The aim of this is to equipindividualsandorganisationstoadvocatefortheirrightsandbringclaimsifnecessary.

GainingpositiveattentionfortheissuesGenerally, the issue ofmigrants’ rights does not play well in themedia. Indeed this is one ofmanyreasonswhy strategic litigation,with its powerful potential to change through the forceof reasoned,rights-basedargumentawayfromtheinfluenceofmediascrutiny,isaparticularlyappropriatestrategyforchangeforthisgroupofdisadvantagedpeople.However, a fewprojectshave involved themedia in somewaywhichhashelpedhighlight the issuesraised and gained some sympathetic media and thus public attention. The residence test wasextensivelycoveredinbothnationalandspecialistpress,aswastherulingontheDetainedFastTrack.ThreeotherexamplesshowhowtheworkishelpingtoraisetheissueofhowmigrantsarebeingtreatedintheUK:

• Just for Kids Law got very positivemedia coverage for the case it took in theGuardian, theIndependent,theTelegraph,theDailyMail,theBBCandITVLondon.ThoughJFKLawwaswaryandrecognisedthatnegativepublicityposedarisktothecaseandtheyoungpeopleinvolved


15

theywerepleasedathowitwaspickedupbymediaoutlets,andhowtheyoungpeoplewereportrayedas‘peoplewhocouldcontributetosocietyandwhodeservedachance’.

• The AIRE Centre has got positive coverage for the work they have done on uncovering the

realityofOperationNexus.TheGuardian,Politics.co.ukandEmito(aportalforPolishmigrantsinScotland)haveallprovidedcommenttothemonthepotentialunfairnessofthepolicy.25

• TherehasbeeninterestfromjournalistsintheHackneyCommunityLawCentrereportonthe

qualityofaccommodationprovidedtomigrantsunderS17

PositiveoutcomesforyoungmigrantsThe challenges researched and taken forward through SLF-funded work affect the lives of youngmigrantsinvariousways.Sometimesthisisaboutpreventinganegative:eitherone‘inthepipeline’,liketheresidencetestorLandlordChecksscheme26,oronewhichalreadyexists,likeDetainedFastTrackorrestrictive financial regulations for studentswithDLR. As such, the impact has to be counter-factual:whatwouldhavehappenedhadthisnotbeenstopped?Otherprojectsensureorholdthepromiseofbettersupportandtreatment.OutcomesandimpacttodateforyoungmigrantsSomeofthediscerniblebenefitsduringPhase3were:

• Youngmigrantscanaccesslegalaidwithouttheresidencetest.“Everydaytherewillbepeoplewhogetlegalaidwhowouldnothavegotithadtheresidencetestbeenbroughtin–andthathasbeentrueofeverydayforthepasttwoyears.Hundredsandthousandsofpeopleaffected–wedon’tknowhowmanyasthegovernmentdidn’tproduceanyestimateswhentheymadetheproposals.Butit’smany.”

• Young migrants can access key services, including special educational services. Had the

residence testgone through in itsproposed form itwouldhaveeliminatedsomeservices forthosewhodidnotpass the test, suchas specialeducationalneedsand facilities fordisabledpeople.Again, it is impossibletoestimatehowmanythiswouldhaveaffected,but itwill runintohundredsandpossiblythousands.

Extract from Bindmans’ submission on the residence test regarding its impact on access to keyservices,showingwhatmighthavehappenedhaditbeenenforced. Familiesofrecentlyarrivedchildrenwithspecialeducationalneeds,whoseaccesstoeducationdependsonproperprovisionbeingmadetomeettheiradditionalneeds,willbeunabletoaccesslegalhelpandadvice.An example is the case of L, who had recently arrived in the UK for the purposes of refugee familyreunionwithherhusband,andwhowouldhavebeenunable toaccess legaladvice in relation to thefailureof the local authority toassess theneedsofherautistic8- year-old sonbecause shehadonlybeen in the UK for three months, given by Coram Children’s Legal Centre in its response to theTransformingLegalAidconsultation(App2Dp.2220§20).Another consequence is that children and their parents may not have access to the documentationneeded to prove that theymeet the residence test. Shauneen Lambe of Just for Kids Law gives theexampleofC,whose(British)motherwasincarceratedatthetimethatsheneededadvicetoappealC’sSEN statement, andwould not have been able to access her passport to prove that she passed the

25https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/17/law-abiding-activist-faces-deportation-from-uk26 The pilot has already happened: JCWI was rushing to try and prevent this being rolled out.


16

residence test (App 2D pp.2258-2259 §6.1). In such circumstances a childwill be deprived of specialeducationalprovisionwhichmaybecriticaltohisfutureprospectssimplybecausehisparentisunabletoproveherlawfulresidence.

• Youngmigrantsabletoaccesshighereducation.Itisnotknownhowmanyyoungpeoplehavebeenpositively affectedby Just for Kids Law’s successful challenge to the restrictive studentfinanceregulations,butitwillrunintothethousands.Alltheseyoungpeoplearenowabletoget loansandgo touniversity.Notonly that,but theyare takingactive steps toensure thatthose ‘hidden’ migrants in the education system who may fear they cannot proceed arecontactedandencouragedtoapplythroughtheLetUsLearncampaign,whichiscontinuing.

• Youngmigrantsnolongersubjecttoremovalswithnonotice.“Ican’tgiveyouprecisefigures,

but I sawone letter from the immigrationministerwhich said they thought the singlenoticeregimewouldcreate14,000additionalcases. I’mnottoosurewhatthosefigureswerebasedon,couldwellhavebeenmorethanthat.”

• Refugee children separated from their families have the prospect of unification. JCWI’s

interventionledtotheJusticeMcCloskeyconcludingthatitisantitheticalto‘strongandstable’societies to create ‘disfunctioning, debilitated and under achieving’ families as a result ofenforced separation. Though the case has not established an automatic duty on the UK tofacilitatefamilyreunionwhenrefugeechildrenareseparatedfromtheirparents,itintroducesthe possibility of so doing.27 Thiswill have a profound effect, potentially, onmany children.“The FamilyMigration Rules are keeping thousands of families apart and children are beingforcedtogrowupinbrokenhomes.….Wehaveshownthatatpresenttherearearound15,000childrenseparatedfromonemigrantparentasaresultoftheRules.Allofthesechildrenhaveamigrantbackgroundasoneparentatleastisamigrant.ThereislittledataavailablefromtheHomeOfficebutourestimateisthataround21%(3150)ofthesechildrenareactuallymigrantsthemselves. The impact of prolonged family separation, stress and anxiety is significantlydetrimental to children as our evidence and that from independent child psychologists hasshown.”Therehavealreadybeensuccessfulcasesasaresultofthisjudgment.28

• YoungmigrantsheldintheDetainedFastTracksystemhavebeenreleased.Asaresultofthe

challengebroughtbytheMigrants’LawProjectandDetentionActiontheDetainedFastTrackhas been suspended indefinitely. Detention Actionwas in contactwith lawyers and advisersaroundthecountrykeepingthemuptodate,andfromthemomentthepolicytodetainwasfoundunlawfultheywrotetoencourageclientstoseeklegaladvice.“Todate,over300peoplehavebeenreleasedfromdetention,andthoseasylumseekerswhoremaindetainedandhaverights of appeal are now having their appeals heard under the Principal Appeals ProcedureRules. This represents huge progress in effectively challenging an aspect of the asylum andimmigration system, which impacts on very many young migrants, and that has been thesubject of significant concern from NGOs and other bodies due to the very high risk ofunfairness in determining detainees’ claims, and the risks to vulnerable individuals such astorturesurvivors,duetotheirdetention.”

• Youngmigrantsheldin‘theJungle’maybereunitedwithfamilyintheUK.TheSLF’sfunding

oftheMigrants’LawProjectwasacontributiontoamuchwiderprojectwhichisongoingandhassubstantialramifications.EssentiallytheprojectisseekingtoenableyoungandextremelyvulnerablemigrantstojoinfamilyintheUKandholdthegovernmenttoaccountandplacethebestinterestsofthechildfirst.SomeSyrianboyshavebeenreunitedalready29,thoughthis isthesubjectofongoingchallengebytheUKgovernment.

Potentialoutcomesofwork‘inthepipeline’27 By saying that the refusal to grant entry clearance to family members can breach the Article 8 ECHR rights of a child refugee. 28http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/4579_child_refugee_wins_right_to_reunite_with_parents29https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/21/three-syrian-boys-arrive-from-calais-camp-first-use-legal-process


17

Otherprojectsholdthepromiseofimprovingthelivesandprospectsofyoungmigrants:

• If thework by PRCBC develops and a legal challenge is successful, the ‘good character’ testwhichisbeingappliedtomigrantsasyoungas10maybemodifiedorremoved.Atpresenttheeffectsaredevastating:registrationcanberefusedforreasonsofrefusingthe‘goodcharacter’test,thestandardforwhichisveryhigh,andwhichisnotsubjecttos4oftheRehabilitationofOffenders Act 1974,meaning that unspent convictions are still counted. The age of childrenbeingsubjectedtothistesthasbeenincreasinglylowered:itwas16yearsoldin2006,nowithas been lowered to 10. “BetweenDecember 2011 and June 2014, 415 young peoplewererefusedcitizenshipongroundsofcharacter.”

• GMIAU30’s pre-litigation research into the fee waiver policy is looking into the effect of the

administrative fee for extending a leave to remain, or formaking an application in the firstplace.“Thefeesare£1,149perpersonandaresohighastoeffectivelypreventfamiliesonlowincomes from extending their leave to remain or making applications in the first place. Theeffect is that families, includingmigrantchildren,can losetheir leaveentitlementandall thatgoeswithit-accesstobenefits,housingetc-andendupdestitutewithnorecoursetopublicfunds. We have 100+ families affected by the policy in our current caseload.” A successfulchallengewouldpreventthis.

• Liverpool Law Clinic’s research into the Home Office’s implementation of the Stateless

Determination Procedure arises from a belief that there aremany youngmigrants who arestatelessoratriskofstatelessness.“WeconsiderthattheHomeOfficeisnotimplementingitsStatelessDeterminationProcedure (SDP) inaccordancewith its international obligations, andthat therearemanyyoungpeoplewhoareunable toaccess itwhoarestatelessorat riskofstatelessness. They are without access to education, employment, housing, benefits ortraining.”Theirresearch,whichhasjuststarted,aimstofirstevidenceandthenseektoredressthisgapwhich,ifsuccessful,couldleadtoyoungpeoplewhoare‘attheendoftheroad’beingrecognisedandthusbeingabletoaccesstherangeofservicesmentioned.

• Similarly ASIRT31’swork, funded in January 2016 seeks to build up a picture of those young

peopleunder18,whohavelivedcontinuouslyintheUKfor7yearsandwhoarebeinggrantedlimitedleavetoremain.Thepointhereisthatthecurrentpolicygrantsthisleaveinblocksof30months only, requiring costly renewal fees (seeGMIAU’s research, above) and is grantedwithno recourse topublic funds.ASIRTwishes todeterminehow far this isablanketpolicy,andresearchwhattheyanecdotallyknowthroughtheircasework:thenegativeimpactofsuchshort-termleaveonthewellbeingoftheyoungpeopleandtheirfamilies.

• ClarifyingthepositionregardingOperationNexus,iftheAIRECentresucceeds(representedby

DPG) could stem theworrying trendof deportations of EEAmigrantswho seem tobebeingdeported forno reasonother thanbeinghomeless and/or ‘lowharm’. Inparticular theAIRECentrehasnotedyoungandvulnerableEEAclientsinYouthOffenderInstituteswhoarebeingimpactedbyOperationNexusandtheyhavebeenpursuingthisleadtoidentifyyoungpeopleatriskandtryandhelpthemresistunfairandpotentiallyunlawfuldeportation.Theevidencetheycollectwhilstconductingresearchforthecase(whichisnowgoingtoCourt)willbemadeavailable to practitionersworking in such institutions in order that they can help the youngpeopleresistthesespeedyandcomplicateddeportationprocedures.

OrganisationalandSectoralBenefitsOrganisations reported positive outcomes from the work for themselves as well as for their clients.Theseincluded:

30 Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit 31 Asylum Support and Immigration Resource Team in Birmingham


18

• DetentionActionnotedthattheyhadgonethrougha“hugelearningexperience”andfelttheirreputationandstandinghadbeen improvedasaresultoftakingasuccessfulchallenge.TheyalsomanagedtoconnecttheirworkontheFastTrackRules,wheretheyhadregularmeetingswith theHomeOffice,withother separatework theywere taking forwardonalternatives todetention.“WhilstthemeetingsondetentionattheHomeOfficeweresometimesexcruciating,Imadequitealotofprogresswithsomebodyfromthereonalternativestodetention.Intheendour litigation was so successful that it outstripped that negotiation – but that was aconstructive,informedpartneronalternativestodetentionwhichwecreatedduringthattime,drawingonthatwork.”

• TheworkdonebyMigrants’ LawProject andDetentionAction in settingupa referral group

enabledthesectortobemoreco-ordinatedinitschallengetothefasttrackrules,butalsointhewaytheysupportedclientswhowereaffected.Theworkdevelopedsectoralcooperationandrelationshipsforthoseworkinginthisarea.

• Public Law Project noted that their work on no notice removals had both increased their

knowledgeofthepolicy,andofotherissuessurroundingit(suchasthewithdrawalofappealrights). Italsofitswithworktheyhavebeendoingundertheir legalaidsupportproject.“WeknowabouttheimpactthattheremovaloflegalaidforimmigrationhashadasaresultofourlitigationagainsttheLAA.Sothatworkdovetailed,inparticularthedifficultiesthatpeoplehaveinapplyingforexceptionalcasefunding.”

• JustforKidsLaw’sworkonstudentfeeshashelpedgrowamovementofyoungpeoplelinked

tothelegalchallenge.Thecampaignhasbeenkickedoffbyabarristerwhoisnowmotivatedtocampaignforrights32Oneyoungpersoninvolvedsaidthisfollowingthevictoryincourt.“Thebattle iswonbutthewarisfarfromover……Ithinkit’s importanttousethisasaslingshottopropelusfurthertowardsourgoals.33Ithinkthefutureofthecampaignliesininformingthosewhoareunawarethattheymightbeaffectedinthesamewaybeforeit’stoolate.Wehavethepowertocausechangesolet’suseit!”

• The AIRE Centre has used CrowdJustice funding for the first time to take forward a legal

challengebuildingontheirresearchworkonOperationNexus.Theyfeelthatthishasnotonlygiven them a new string to their fundraising bow, but that the publicity this work and theCrowdJustice campaign has generated has been unusual and beneficial for the organisation.“I’venotstoppedgettingemailsfrombarristersandlawyersandotheracademics.ThatkindofexposurefortheAIRECentreisrare.”

• JCWI has clearly moved into an increasingly strategic legal space, and part of this is the

encouragementwhichtheexistenceoftheSLFbringstothistypeofwork.“JCWIisfiringonallcylindersnow.”

• ASAP gained learning about how to do an intervention and how that works. This has been

usefulastheyplanfuturework:“Welearntalotabouthowtakinglegalcasesworks.Itismoreworkthanyouthinkitisgoingtobe.Itisalsodifficulttomanagethework,canonlymanageitsofarandthereisstuffthatcomesinlastminute.Wewerethinkingaboutgoingforalegalaidcontract–soit’sagoodtasterforus.WedefinitelywanttodomorearoundtheImmigrationAct in particular.” They also feel that it has helped raise their profile more broadly, anddevelopedlong-lastingrelationshipswithothersinthefield,includingMaternityAction.

• HackneyCommunityLawCentrefeelsthattheresearchtheydidhelpedbringalotoftheirday

todayworkintofocus.Italsohelpedraisetheirprofile:“Theworkhasenhancedourstandingamongstfunders–localauthorityandarangeofotherfunders.”

32 http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/09/10/former-hackney-schoolgirl-starts-campaign-let-us-learn-migrant-students-higher-education/33 http://www.justforkidslaw.org/let-us-learn/let-us-learn-blog-let-us-learn/success-at-the-supreme-court


19

• Trust for London also feels that they have learnt from the SLF. “We’ve learnt. One of ourfundingprioritiesisadviceandthishasenabledusto‘goupstream’abit.SoIfeel it’sworkedhandinhandwithourotherwork.”

ViewofachievementsoverallIngeneralintervieweesfeltextremelypositiveabouttheSLF’sachievements.ThoughitwasnotedthatthecontributionoftheSLFtomanyofthesechallengesissmallcomparedtotheoverallcostoftakingforward a case, various interviewees, notably the lawyers, were keen to stress that the contributionshouldnotbejudgedonthebasisofthepercentageofcostalone.Forthemthetimingoffunding,oftenmaderapidlyavailable,andthepreparednessoftheSLFtofund‘timetothink’hasanenormousvaluewhichcannotbejudgedonlyfinancially.Keypointsmadewerethat:

• SLFfundedworkattacksdifferenttypesofhostilityanddiscrimination(activeandpassive).“What the SLF is trying to do is sometimes get authorities to comply with their duties andsometimes ‘knock out’ existing rules and regulations which undermine rights. So the Calaischallengeistheformer(gettingtheUKtocomplywithwhatitshouldbedoing)andtheworkonthe Right to Rent, or the Detained Fast Track is the latter.” Both types of case are aboutcreatinganenvironmentwhichis‘hostiletomigrants’:thegovernment’sstatedaim,andbothareregardedasimportant.

• TheSLFprovidesarareopportunitytothinkaboutthelawfulnessofpracticesurfacingonthe

frontline.“I thinktheworkcomingfromprojects toilingonthe frontlinearereally important.When I talk with advice workers I can see that it is very easy for them almost to becomeimmunetotheawfulnessgoingonaroundthem.ButtheyaretheonesnoticingtheKafkaesquestuffgoingon.Thingslikeapplicationfeeswhichpeoplehavetopay–we’vefundedsomethinglooking at that34. That’s such an administrative thing – but it can be so important. It is soimportant thatorganisations that comeacross that stuffona regularbasisareable to say ‘Ithinkthere’ssomethingunlawfulherebutdon’tknowwhattodoaboutit’.I’vealwayssaidthisfundsthinkingspace.”(Internalstakeholder)

• Outcomescanbeunpredictableandtaketimetoshinethrough.Thelegalandpolicycontext

isconstantlychangingandthecourseofchallengingdiscriminatory law,policyandpractice israrelylinear.However,whatisbeginningtoshownowishowtheworklaiddownbypreviousSLF-funded projects can build over time with various projects and experts inputting fromdifferentangles(asinworkonOperationNexus,forexample)andhowworkdevelopedafewyearsagocanproveuseful,orcontributetofurtherchange,atalaterdate.Forexample,oneinternalstakeholderreflectedonhowthedetentionofpregnantwomenhadbeenaffectedbythestrategiclitigationbroughtbyBhattMurphywithMedicalJusticeandoriginallyfundedbytheSLFinApril2013.Thoughpregnantwomencanstillbedetained,therehasbeenatimelimitof 72 hours imposed on such detention and the campaign to cease detention entirelycontinues. “The strategic litigation forced the Home Office to publicly apologise in Autumn2015,andthiscombinedwiththeintensivelobbyingofMedicalJusticeandothersgeneratedalotofmomentumforthecampaign.”(Internalstakeholder)

• Overall,thesuccessrateofgrantsmadehasbeenextremelyhigh.Thismaybepartlybecause

of the assessment process (which screens out work which is insufficiently geared to legalimpact), and partly also that the ‘field’ is getting more used to thinking through strategicchallenge as they have now been fighting an unprecedented wave of damaging anddiscriminatory lawsandpolicies for severalyears.Evenwithgrantswhereany legalorpolicychangehasyet toberealised, it ispossible tosee that theworkhaspotential to feed futurechallengeandargument.Sointhemaingrantshavebeenwellaimed,itisfelt.“It’sincrediblehowmanyofthosegrantshavebeenabsolutewins.Yougodownthatlist–itisextraordinarilyeffective.I’mscrollingthroughlookingforadudandIhaven’tseenoneyet.Theleadingcasesarevirtuallythemostimportantcasesoftheage.”(Internalstakeholder)

34 GMIAU started research into the fee waiver policy in January 2016 funded by the SLF.


20

• Immigrationisleadingthefieldintermsofactivestrategicchallenge.Somelawyersfeelthatnotonlyhavethequalityofchallengesbeenhigh,butthattheSLFhascontributedtoamuchhigherbaseofchallengingactivitythaninotherfields.“ButfortheSLF,wewouldnothavehadsomany targeted legal aid challenges in the immigrationarena. If you lookat legal aid cutsacross theboard,nootherareahascomecloseto thenumberofchallenges immigrationhashad.Socialwelfare lawandeducation for instance. I reallybelieve that that is todowith theSLF.”(Internalstakeholder)


21

Section3:CaseStudiesProjectswere selected as case studies in consultationwith Trust for London andMigrationWork CIC.Most were selected because they were felt to have been a combination of complex, interesting orimpactfulthoughsomeprojectswereincludedwheretheoutcomeswerefelttohavebeenlesscleartogive balance. The following table gives an overview of case studies selected, listed in chronologicalorderofwhenfunded.Grantee(+partner) Description WhenfundedFundedpre-Phase3Bindmans + PublicLawProject

Pre-litigation research into the impact of theproposedresidencetestforlegalaidontherightsofmigrantchildren

2013(September)

HackneyCommunityLawCentre+HackneyMigrantCentre

Pre-litigationresearchonSection17decisionmakingby social services and accommodation provided tomigrantfamilies

2014(July)

AsylumSupportAppealsProject

Intervention relating to the refusal of Section 4support by the Home Office to migrants withoutstandingArticle8claims

2014(September)

PublicLawProject Pre-litigationresearchonno-noticeremovalspolicy 2014(November)TheMigrants’LawProject(ILC)+DetentionAction

Further research to develop work on the DetainedFastTrack

2014(November)

Fundedduringphase3JustforKidsLaw Pre-litigationresearchtoprimeaTPIrelatingtothe

lackof support for youngpeoplewithDL to attenduniversity.

2015(January)

DeightonPierceGlynn+Kalayaan

Intervention for Kalayaan relating to whetherdiplomatic immunity affords a defence to a civilclaimbyavictimoftrafficking

2015(March)

TheAIRECentre Pre-litigation researchonOperationNexus to see ifit unfairly targets and discriminates against EUNationalsandfamilies

2015 (June) +extension grant 2016(March)

Casestudy1:Keepinglegalaidforallyoungmigrants

• BackgroundThegovernment’sproposalsonTransforming LegalAidwerepublished inApril 2013. Theypromptedwidespreaddismayfromlawyersandcampaignersrepresentingdisadvantagedcommunities, includingmigrantcommunities.Manyorganisationsgatheredevidenceandmadesubmissionsontheirdamagingimplications to submit to thegovernment,buton the5th September2013,when the LordChancellorChrisGraylingannouncedtheoutcomeoftheconsultation,theproposalsoncivillegalaidstillincludedthe‘residencetest’.Thiswasagatewaytestwhichmeantthatunlessanindividualcouldprove‘lawfulresidence’intheUKfor12months,andphysicalpresenceatthetimewhenlegalaidwassought,theywouldnotbeeligibleforallformsofconventionalcivilaid.Thepotentialramificationsforyoungmigrantswereimmense.

• SLF-fundedwork


22

Bindmans immediately applied (in September 2013) to the SLF for funding towards pre-litigationresearch.Theyplannedtojudiciallyreviewthegovernment’santicipateddecision,andrecognisedthatforthistheyneededtoamassacompellingbodyofevidenceshowinghowwidespreadandserioustheproposalswere.TheSLFgrantof£8,000enabledthemtostudyandanalysetheproposalsandinparticularhelpedthemspendmoretimeon:

• Analysing informationcollected intheresidencetestconsultationandpursuethosewhomaybeabletoprovidemoreinformationonthepotentialimplicationsoftheresidencetest.

• Seekingwitnessstatementsfromspecialistsolicitorsfirms.• Contacting a wide range of NGOs and statutory bodies to get case studies about how the

residencetestwouldimpactontheirclients.• Seeking statements from the Children’s Commissioner and the Official Solicitor to establish

theirpositionandconcerns.• Submitting extensive FOI requests to public authorities which could help uncover how the

residencetestwouldimpact• WorkingwithPublicLawProjecttoreviewandupdatetheinformationtheyhadbeengathering

about the exceptional funding scheme (which the government was claiming would act as a‘safetynet’forthosedisqualifiedbytheresidencetest)toshowhowthiswouldbeinadequate.

ThishelpedBindmans,workingwithPublicLawProjectastheclaimantandspecialistCounsel,tobuildadetailed and carefully framed argument to back up the claims onwhich permission for JR had beengranted. Theywere able to show how the exceptional funding scheme had systematically failed, thetypes of individuals and cases which would be affected by the residence test, and put a compellingseriesofwitnessstatementsbeforetheCourtfromspecialistlegalfirmsdetailingthetypesofcasestheyhadhandledwhichwouldnolongerqualifyforlegalaidunderthenewtest.“Thefundingwasveryusefultoenableustodothatpreliminarypre-litigationworkinbottomingouttheeffectsoftheresidencetest.Thegovernmenthadn’tdoneanyrealanalysisatall.Andtherewereobviously lots of individual consultation responses, but they were all speaking for particularconstituencies–children,refugees,lawyers’perspectivesandsoon.So the SLF partly enabled us to gather evidencewhich had not been gathered before (as not everyconstituency had been researched and documented), but also tomarshalwhatwas available in themanyconsultationresponsesandorganiseitintoaformwhichcouldbeusefulforlitigation.HadtherebeennoSLFgrant,wewouldhavetriedbut itgaveall involvedsomepumppriming.That’s thebestway of describing it – it was a catalyst to enable the existing knowledge and research to bemostusefullydeployedandsupplementedtoprogressthecase.”(Grantee)

TheJudicialReviewwassuccessful.Thecasewasheard inathree-judgeDivisionalCourt inApril2014andadamningjudgmentwasgivenagainsttheresidencetestwhichsaidthedraftstatutoryinstrumentwere ultra vires and the discriminatory features of it were unjustifiable. By the time this judgmenthappenedthestatutoryinstrumenthadalreadybeenapprovedbytheHouseofCommons,andwouldhaveproceededthroughtheHouseofLordsunimpededhadthejudgmentnotbeengiven.Victorywasthereforeinthenickoftime.Howeverthatwasnottheendofthestory.JohnHalford,oneofBindmans’teamworkingonthecase,describesthesubsequenteventsas“partlitigation,partrollercoaster”35.ThegovernmentappealedtheDivisionalCourt’s judgmentandthisappealwasallowed inNovember2015.BindmansandPLP learntthatfollowingthisthegovernmentplannedtowithholdlegalaidonthebasisoftheresidencetestfromSummer2016.This leftnooptionbuttopressontotheSupremeCourt iftheresidencetestwastobestopped.AndthisPublicLawProjectdid,representedbyBindmansandspecialistCounsel. Theeventualhearingon

35 Legal Action, May 2016, P.5 (News and Comment) The Supreme Court’s rejection of the legal aid residence test is a victory for the rule of law by John Halford


23

the residence test was arranged for April 2016: two years after the original JR which Bindmans hadtaken forward, and two and a half years after their original application to the SLF to kickstart thechallenge.Again,theworkdoneduringthepreparatorystagesofthecase,fundedbytheSLF,formedaninvaluablepartofthegroundworkforthishearing.Atthefinaltwo-dayhearinginfrontofsevenjudgestherewasonefurtherdramatictwist.Onthefirstdayat4p.m.LordNeubergerindicatedthatheandhisfellowjusticeswantedtoconfer.“He said ‘give us tenminutes,wewill be back’. And they came back and said ‘we are allowing theappeal’.We think it isunprecedented in theSupremeCourt that theyhavegivena judgmenton thesameday.Thewrittenjudgmentmightbeafewmonths,butwehavetheruling.”36

TheirreasonsfordoingthiswerethattheyagreedwiththeoriginaljudgmentoftheDivisionalCourtandpronounced thewhole schemeultravires.Asa result, legalaid for thehighestpriority cases remainsaccessibletoallregardlessofnationality,originandplaceofresidence.

• OutcomesandimpactClearly the SLF’s contribution did not fund the whole challenge to the residence test. Thousands ofhours’workhavegone into challenging it at its various stages. Lawyersoperatedonanowinno feebasis,andhavingbeensuccessfulintheSupremeCourtcostswillbeawardedtoPLPanddistributedinduecourse.However, it helped at a critical stage. The body of evidence gathered convinced the Divisional andultimatelySupremeCourtoftheextremelynegativeanddiscriminatoryeffectsoftheresidencetestandultimatelyconvincinglywontheday,inspiteofthenegativesetbackintheCourtofAppeal.Formigrants,theimpactisdifficulttomeasureasit‘preventsanegative’butwecannotethat:

• A large number of children and young people frommigrant backgroundswould have foundthemselveswithoutanytypeoflegaladviceandrepresentationatall.Thenumbersofchildrenandyoungpeopleinvolvedwerehuge:onestudyputthenumberofchildrenandyoungpeoplewhose immigration status had not been regularised at upwards of 120,00037 of whom halfwouldhavebeenbornintheUK.

• Thosenotpassing the residence testwouldhave lost access to a rangeof other services (aswell as legal aid). These services included, for example, special educational needs provision(SEN)provision.IftheresidencetesthadcomeininitsoriginalformitwouldhavemeantthattwochildreninthesameclasswithSENcouldhavebeentreatedentirelydifferently:thechildof aUK residentwouldqualifyandbe statementedandassessed,but the childof thePolishbuilder who did not meet the residence test would not have been eligible for any SENprovision.

Thesmallamountoffundingprovidedcanthereforebeseenasacontribution,atacriticalpoint,toasuccessionof legal challengeswhichmanaged toprotectmigrants living in theUK frombeingdeniedbothaccesstojusticeandservices.

Casestudy2:Challengingsub-standardlocalauthorityaccommodationformigrantfamilieswithchildren

• Background‘S.17 support’ is the support local authorities have to provide to accommodate andmeet the basicneedsofeverychildandtheirsupportingfamiliesunderSection17oftheChildrenAct1989irrespective

36 Report to SLF Grantees meeting from Bindmans representative, May 2016 37 COMPAS (University of Oxford) study, 2011.


24

oftheirimmigrationstatus38.Thedutyprovidesalifelineforthousandsofotherwisedestitutechildreneveryyear.LawfirmsandNGOsacrossthecountryhavebeenawareforalongtimethatSection17provisionwasoften falling short ofwhat should beprovided: in termsof the lengthof time taken to access it, theassessment procedure and the quality of accommodation provided. Hackney Community Law CentrewasoneofmanyorganisationsdealingwiththefalloutfrompoorS17provision:“[Theresearch]cameaboutasIwasdoingloadsandloadsofS17cases.Iprobablyhadabout50casesongoing,mostofwhichsettledbeforeJR.Andcommonthemeswerecomingthroughonallofthem.SoIspoketotheSLF,andtheythoughtitwasaviableproject.”(Grantee)

Oneofthedifficultiesofdevelopingaco-ordinatedlegalstrategytotacklethiswasthattheinformationabouttheproblemswaspiecemeal.AsonememberoftheExpertPanelputit:“Thereisnolegalaidforthesecasessohowthehellwouldweknowwhatisgoingonunlesswedidsomeproperresearch?”Asaresult, problems with S17, often resulting in severe hardship for children and families, were beingtackledonacasebycasebasis:“HCLCwasdoingdropinsessionsatHackneyMigrantCentreonWednesdays.Weweregettingloadsofdestitutefamilieswithsmallandvulnerablechildrenandwerealisedtherewasalotofinconsistentpracticegoingonbylocalauthoritiestotryandavoidpickingupanydutyinrelatingtohousing.Thisworkisdifficulttofund–formostofthesefamilies,theirimmigrationstatusisnotregularised.Sotheinnovativesolutionwastolookatthechildren–asiftheLAswerenotpreparedtoacceptdutytowardsparentstheywouldrethechildren.Westarteddoingthatonanadhocbasis,andwhatmaterialisedwas the lack of consistent practice, and particularly that local authorities were under financialpressureswhichdictatedtheirapproach,whichwastryingnottopickupanyduty.”(Grantee)

• SLF-fundedwork

HackneyCommunity LawCentre, inpartnershipwithHackneyMigrantCentre, approached theSLF inJuly2014andwereawarded£28,928toconductapieceofpre-litigationresearchwhichsystematicallyexaminedthequalityofhousingprovidedbyLondonlocalauthoritiesunderSection17.Theresearchwasbothqualitativeandquantitative,andtheprimarydatageneratedincluded:

• Informationabout64families(61surveyfamiliesandthreeadditionalcasestudyfamilies).• Information from 21 practitioners (lawyers, caseworkers) about 61 properties in which 57

familiesin21differentlocalauthoritieswereaccommodatedacrossLondon.• Sevencasestudies,selectedfromapoolofcaseswheretheaccommodationprovideddidnot

meettheirneeds.Theseweredrawnupfromsitevisitsandsemi-structuredinterviews.• Two reports commissioned from an independent Environmental Health Consultant who

inspectedandreportedonthepropertiesoftwocasestudyfamilies.• Agenericreportontheimpactofinadequatehousingonthehealthandwellbeingofchildren,

whichwascommissionedfromanindependentpsychiatricexpert.• FOIrequeststosevenlocalauthorities(thoughnotallreplied).

TheresultantreportAPlacetoCallHome:AreportintothestandardofhousingprovidedtochildreninneedinLondonwaswrittenbyCharlotteThreiplandandpublishedearlyDecember2015. Ithadawellattended launch at Garden Court Chambers.39 In essence, the report showed that though migrantchildrenwerebeingsavedfromhomelessness,theywerestillnothavingtheirbasicneedsmetandtwothirdsofallLondonpropertiesinwhichlocalauthoritieswereplacingvulnerablechildrenwerefailingto

38 Some adults are excluded from S17 support because of their immigration status but this exclusion will not apply if refusing to provide support will be contrary to a person’s human rights or rights under EU law. Children are never excluded from S17 support regardless of their immigration status. 39 http://www.hclc.org.uk/2015/11/invitation-the-launch-of-a-place-called-home-report-december-01-2015/


25

meetthechildren’sbasicneeds.Theknockoneffectonachild’semotional,physicalandmentalhealthwasprofound.Someof thestories in thereportareshocking.Familiesarebeingplaced inaccommodation inseveredisrepair, overcrowded and infested with vermin. A number of families are being placed in B&Baccommodation,someofthematpre-schooloratschool,andtheaccommodationwasclearlyaffectingtheir development. The independent report written by the environmental health officer found thepropertiestobewellbelowhousinglawstandards,andinoneinstanceconcludedthat:‘Inmyopinionthisaccommodationfallsfarshortofacceptableprovisionforthishousehold.Iamveryconcerned for the health, safety and wellbeing of the occupiers in such a situation and urgent re-housingisrecommended.’

• Outcomesandimpact

The report gained publicity and raised awareness and various articles were written about it in thespecialistonlinemediainparticular.Atalegallevel,thereporthasalreadybeenusedinonecourthearingbyBirminghamCommunityLawCentre (BCLC) in December 2015 when they sought permission to proceed with a judicial review ofSandwellMBC’sdecisiontoplacechildrenandfamiliesinhotelsforyearsonend.BCLCsaidthereportbrought“colouranddetail to the issueofchildren inneedwhoaresupportedby localauthoritiesandclearlychimeswiththeissuesfacedbyourclients”.Thelongertermimpactofgatheringinformationofthisnaturecannotyetbeknown.Whatwedoknowisthatthisisacommonlyencounteredproblemcausingextremedistressandhardshiptomanymigrantfamilieswith children. Having collated and generated informationwhich evidences a pattern of poorprovision,itishopedthatthisreportwillenablemoresystematicchallengeoflocalauthoritydecision-making by both feeding existing litigation (as it has already started to do) and by HCLC and othersidentifying test cases they can take against local authorities on S17 related issues. It has enabledorganisationstostartfromahigherevidencebasethanbeforewhentacklingsuchcasesthoughitisstillthecasefornowthatmultipleindividualcasesarehavingtobetaken,manyofwhicharesettledbeforetheyarriveincourtasamatterofcourse.

Casestudy3:Gettingbasicsupporttootherwisedestitutemigrantswithoutstandingclaims

• BackgroundIf you are an asylum seekerwho has had your case refused then youwill have your asylum supportstopped.Atthispointtheonlyoptionforsupport ifyouaregoingtostayintheUK(topursueafreshclaim,orbecauseyoucannotgohome,orforwhateverotherreason)istoapplyforSection4support.Otherwiseyouwillremaindestitute.Section4oftheImmigrationandAsylumAct1999makesprovisionforformerasylumseekerstoreceiveaccommodationand£35.39perweek40viaapaymentcard.Inordertogetthisyouhavetoshowyouaredestitute,andthenproveyouareeligiblebecauseyouareeithertakingstepstoleave,areunabletoleaveorhaveafreshclaimoutstanding.ASAP(AsylumSupportAppealsProject)wasawarethatwhendestitutemigrantshadoutstandingArticle8 human rights (as opposed to asylum) claims, theyweremainly not applying for Section 4 support.Thesemigrantsoftenincludedyoungmigrantsandseparatedmigrantparents.Itwasnotclearwhetheritwaspossible toapply forSection4 in suchcases,but reports fromover200 frontlineorganisationsASAPwasintouchwithindicatedthatfewifanysuchapplicationswerebeingmade.Thisseemedtobe

40 Current rate


26

largelybecauseagenciesthoughtthecaseswouldberefusedbecausetheentitlementwasnotclear.Itwasaclassic‘greyarea’,inotherwords.ASAPthereforewantedtoclarifywhethersuchdestituteandirregularmigrantswithoutstandingArticle8claimswereentitledtosuchsupportundertheprovisionsoftheact.ASAPfeltthatthoughtheissuewastrickytoargueincourt,pursuingtheinterventionposedminimalrisksforclients.

• SLF-fundedworkSLFfundedASAP£19,500tointerveneasaThirdPartyinSeptember2014onaparticularcasewhereadestitute clientwith an Article 8 claim had been refused Section 4 support (R (Mulumba) v First-tierTribunal(AsylumSupport)(1stdef)andSSHD(2nddef).Thefundingmeantthattheywereabletoprepareabodyofevidencetouseintheirintervention;“Igatheredtogether35Article8caseswhichhadbeentotheTribunalandshowedtheinconsistenciesof what had happened to them. Basically the HO was getting it wrong and some of the time thetribunalwasgettingitwrong.”(Grantee)

SLF support alsomeant that theywere able toworkwith Public Law Solicitors and instruct counsel,whichotherwisewouldnothavebeenpossible.The course of the intervention did not run smoothly. There were for example some up-to-the-wireconcernsaboutwhethertheTreasurysolicitorswouldsignaconsentorderagreeingnottoseekcostsintheeventthatASAPlostthecase.ThreeweeksbeforetheJudicialReviewhearing(setforthebeginningof February 2015) they had still not received confirmation on this. They had therefore had to take atacticaldecisiontoworkattheirownrisktopreparethecasewithoutknowingwhetherornotitcouldgo forward (they could not have proceeded if the Treasury had not agreed to sign a consent ordersayingtheywouldnotseekcostsasitwouldhaveexposedtheorganisationtotoomuchfinancialrisk).Butonce theagreementon costswas forthcoming,ASAPprepared for itsday in court.However twoweeks later,ASAP found thatSSHDwereno longergoing todefend thecaseandhaddropped it lessthanaweekbeforeitwasscheduled.Thoughtherewasnojudgment,theconsentorderpublishedbytheJudgewas,however,encouragingasitsaidthat:“Forthepurposesofregulation3(2)(e)oftheImmigrationandAsylum(provisionofAccommodationtoFailed Asylum Seekers) Regulations SI2005/930, ‘Convention Rights’ include the right to respect forfamily and private life under Article 8 of the ECHR and that provision of S4 support may in anyparticularcasebenecessarytoavoidabreachofaperson’sarticle8ECHRrights.”

ASAP were pleased: this clarified the situation, they thought for migrants in similar situations.Unfortunately this consent order did not have the standingASAPoriginally presumed it to have, andwhen they tried to use it to challenge ongoing inconsistent practice by the Home Office (SSHD) ingranting Section4 (ornot) theywere told that it only applied in thatparticular case. Fortunately thePrincipalTribunal JudgeStoreythenmadea ‘landmark judgment’onanothercaseentirelyconfirmingthedesiredpoint:thatthosewithoutstandingArticle8claimscouldclaimSection4support.“ThatfinalcasewasveryacademiccaseasbythetimeshehearditinMay2015thewoman’sArticle8claimhadactuallybeenrefused.ThewholepointaboutS4isthatyouareonlyentitledtoitifthere’ssomething outstanding legally. However, the judge still decided as a point of principle to write ajudgment,eventhoughitwasnotgoingtobenefittheclientdirectly.SoinAugust2015shewrotethejudgmentwhicheffectivelysaidthesamethingastheconsentorder.”(Grantee)

• Outcomesandachievements


27

Effectivelywhatthefundingenabledwasaninputintoacasewhichthensettled,withtheconsentordersetting out the point ASAP had wished to establish. Furthermore, the consent order informed thePrincipal Judgeat theAsylumSupportTribunal,who thenwenton tomakea ‘landmark’ judgment inanotherunrelatedcaseconfirmingtheHighCourtconsentorder.ASAP’ssubmissiontotheHighCourtcasehadbeencrucialtoachievingthis.UltimatelythishasledtoisincreasedclarificationfortheHomeOfficeandTribunalaboutthegrantingofSection4. ItshouldnowbeacceptedbytheSSHDandtheAST judgesthatArticle8applicantsareeligibleforSection4support.ASAPwereabletoputthatouttothesector:“Thebigoutcomehasbeenthatwegotagooddecisiononitandwewereabletosharethatwiththesector.Ourinformationgoesoutto600peopleontheasylumsupportadvicenetworkwhoworkwithasylumseekersnationwide–nowtheywillunderstandthatthisgroupmaybeentitledtoS4.”

ThecaseswhichASAPseesaroundthisinclude:“Youngpeoplewhohavebeenbroughttothiscountryataveryyoungage–10orunder–andlaterdiscovertheyhavenostatusandcannolongerstaywiththefamilyorrelativestheywerewith.Soatage18theyarenotentitledtoanything–notbenefits,notnothing.Ihavenotseenanyofthoseforawhile,buttheycouldpotentiallygetS4.Anothercategoryitaffectsareseparatedfatherswheretheirchildren are Britishwith status, butwhere they are no longer livingwith themother. He still has areasonableoutstandingArticle8applicationbecauseofhisfatheringrole.Wehaveseenoneortwoofthosecometothetribunalrecently.”(Grantee)

Thenumbersareunknown,butarenotlikelytobemany.Andinaddition,theImmigrationActwillbechangingprovisionsothatsingleindividualswillsoonnotbeabletogetsupportonthebasisofArticle8anymore:itwillhavetobeprotectionbased,orArticle3.Thegainsarethereforelikelytobefairlyshortlived, though itmay be that thewitness statement, detailing a number of Article 8 Tribunal appealsbetween2013–2014,arerelevanttootherfuturework.

Casestudy4:Challengingnonoticeremovals

• Background PublicLawProjectandMedicalJusticehadalreadyworkedtogetheronthepolicyofremovingmigrantswithnonoticein2011.“AfewyearsagotheHOdecidedtobringinapolicywheretheywouldremovepeople with no notice, and they would apply this to particularly vulnerable families. They basicallyphraseditasbeingintheirownbestinterests:“It’smuchbetterifwejustpounceonyouinthemiddleofthenight” seemed tobe theirargument.Of coursewhat thatmeantwas thatpeoplewereabsolutelyterrified.”(Grantee)MedicalJusticetookacase41in2011andPLP42actedforthem.Asaresultofthat,zeronoticeremovalsweredeclaredunlawfulonthebasisthattheyviolatetheconstitutionalrightofaccesstothecourt.Fast forward three years and the spectre of no notice removals appears once again, this time in theformofthesingledecisionregimeintheImmigrationAct2014andthelinkedEnforcementInstructionsandGuidance,whichmeantthatnonoticewouldbegivenofwhenremovalwouldactuallytakeplace.Removalcouldhappensuddenlywithoutwarningdays,weeksormanymonthsafterthecasedecision.Though no notice removals are but one of several areas of concernwith this Act, such concerns areseriousandurgentgiventheimmediateeffectssuchapolicyhasonmigrantswhocouldstartonceagainto be removed in the night to the airport without recourse to legal advice and representation.Specificallytheactintroduced:

41 R(Medical Justice) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 1710 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/269.html ; [2010] EWHC 1925 (Admin) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1925.html 42 Together with Charlotte Kilroy and Dinah Rose QC as counsel


28

Thesingleremovaldecisionintroducedbys1ofthe2014Actandtheapparentre-introductionon20October 2014 of the zero notice removal policy at section 19 of chapter 60 of the EnforcementInstructionsandGuidance.

Medical Justicewereveryconcernedaboutthe impactthe introductionofthisEnforcementGuidancewould have on the peoplewithwhom theyworked, and immediatelymade contactwith PLP. Otherbodieswerealsoextremely concerned:Amnesty Internationalwrote to the ImmigrationMinisterandquestionswereraisedintheHouseofLords.

• SLF-FundedworkPLPwasawarded£12,925 inNovember2014 fora short, sharppieceofpre-litigation researchwhichwouldfront-loadapotentiallegalchallenge.“Ofteninstrategiccasesyouneedtohaveitfullyevidencedtoillustratewhatthedifficultyis.Soweneededtodoalotofresearchatthatinitialstage.”ThisenabledPLPtodothatresearchandgettheinputofcounselaswellasliaisewithotherNGOsconcernedaboutthepolicy.UltimatelythisledtoPLPproducingaverydetailedletterbeforeclaimsettingoutthecaseagainstthepolicytheyintendedtotaketoJudicialReview.ImportantlytheclaimantwasMedicalJustice:“Weneeded the involvementofMedical Justice. It is verydifficult tobringclaims in thenameofanindividualasthosecanbesettledquiteeasilyandyouneedtoshowstandinganditcanbepickedoffonitsindividualfactsiftheHomeOfficewantstodothat.SoitwasgreatthatMedicalJusticewantedtotakeitforwardandwerepreparedtotakethoserisks.”(Grantee)

Thisletterhadtheeffectofcausingthegovernmenttobackdown.“TheHOwithdrewthepolicy.Itjustshows–ifyoudoareallywellpleadedletterbeforeclaim,andcompletelyfront loadit,thereareverylittlecostriskstotheclaimantanditcanbeveryeffective.SobasicallythepolicywaswithdrawnbytheHOandtheysaidtheywouldreconsiderthepolicyandwouldtakeintoaccountourletterbeforeclaim.”TheHomeOfficeissuedanewpolicywhichwassomethingofanimprovement.Forexample,nonoticeremovals would no longer apply to family cases or to vulnerable clients including UASCs, pregnantwomenandpeoplewho suffer from seriousmental healthdisorders. Thenewpolicy also introduced‘removal windows’: nowwhen they serve any decision a client can know that removal will not takeplace for the first 7 days if not detained, 72 hours if detained. This reflects the HO’s belief thatrepresentation is readily available in prison anddetention, a belief not supportedby theevidenceofMedical Justiceandothers.Thewindow lastsuntil3months fromthedateofdecision, thereforestillproducing immense uncertainty for the client who may, at any time, have the HO attend theiraccommodationandtakethemtotheairportwithoutanynoticeoffurtherremoval.Thepolicyconcessionsaresignificantbutthereareseriousandongoingconcernsaboutthenewpolicyand its implications. As part of the same SLF-fundedwork, PLP submitted FOI requests to get detailsabouthowthepolicy isbeingoperatedand,at the timeofwriting, is considering itsnext steps.“Theissue is fundamentally about access to justice, and whether [the policy] fundamentally denies thoseconstitutionalrights.Withanyfutureworkwewouldbelookingatnotonlythepolicyitself,andwhethernotgivingdirections isunlawfulbutalsowhether theactualnoticeperiodof72hours isadequate. Inviewofall theotherchallengesaroundaccessing justice thosenoticeperiodswethinkare inadequateandwoulddenyeffectiveaccesstothecourts.”

• OutcomesandimpactThenumbersofpeopleaffectedbythepolicywereunknown,butrunintothethousands.“Initially, in October 2014, it just related to Tier Four Students and deportation decisions. But theintentionwastorollitouttoallgroups–soitwasgoingtoaffectthousandsofpeople.Isawoneletterfromthe immigrationministerwhichsaidtheythoughtthesinglenoticeregimewouldcreate14,000additionalcases.I’mnottoosurewhatthosefigureswerebasedonanditcouldwellhavebeenmorethanthat.”(Grantee)


29

Officialstatisticsconfirmthenumberswhomaybeinvolved.Table3.1:Numberofenforcedremovals,takenfromimmigrationstatisticsApril–June201543YearendingJune NumberofEnforcedRemovals %ChangeonPreviousYear2011 14,931 -2012 15,110 +1%2013 14,159 -6%2014 12,539 -11%2015 12,609 +1%These figures do not include deportations – they are Section 10 administrative removal caseswhichwerethetypeofcaseswhichwouldbeaffectedbytheremovalpolicy.The individualmiseryrepresentedbythesestatisticswashighlightedbyMedical Justice:“Wehadonecase:theydroveafterhimonthestreetandbundledhimintoavanandtookhimstraighttotheairport.Hehadseveresicklecelldisease,andwasalsomentallyill.”Thefundedresearchworkhasprovidedabuildingblocktowardschallengingdiscriminatoryprovisionsin the future which may affect cases of this severity in the numbers outlined above. The potentialimpact,therefore,maybetohavelaidthefoundationforawider,deeperchallengetotheImmigrationActandthediscriminatorypracticesitintroducesaroundthisissue.

CaseStudy5:Migrantsdetainedunderthe‘fasttrack’system

• BackgroundManypeoplearriving intheUKweredetainedfromtheminutetheyclaimedasylum,andtheirentireasylumclaimprocessedwhilst lockedinanimmigrationdetentioncentre. ThissystemwascalledtheDetained Fast Track (DFT). A version of the Fast Track was first introduced in 2000 as a process fordecidingasylumclaimsquickly.From 2003, asylum seekers could have their appeals decided in theDFT if theHomeOffice believedtheircasetobestraightforward(andthereforequicklydecided).Initially,asylumseekersfromcountrieswhere it was thought there was in general no risk of persecution could be detained in this way.However,over timethatchangedandasylumseekers fromanycountrycouldbedetained in theDFTincluding from Iran,AfghanistanandUganda.Mostmenwereheld atHarmondsworth,whilewomenwereheldatYarl’sWood.Astheyearsrolledon,moreandmorenationalities,agesandcasetypesweredetainedundertheFastTrackRules.TheproblemswiththeDFTwerelegion. ItwascriticisedbyNGOs,humanrights lawyersand, in2012,theIndependentChiefInspectorofBordersandImmigrationwhohighlightedthedetentionofvictimsoftortureandothervulnerableasylumseekers.Asylumseekersroutinelyreportedconfusion,despairandtraumaandadeterioration in their physical andmental health.Manywereheld forweeks andevenmonthswhilsttheUKBAconsideredtheircase,inspiteofthefactthattheywereonlythereeffectivelyfor the UKBA’s administrative convenience. Separated from family and friends, accessing advice andrepresentationwasnotoriouslydifficultwithmanyonlyabletoaccessadutysolicitoronthesamedayastheirasyluminterview.Thisgavethemlittleornotimetoprepareorgatherdocumentsorsupportingevidence.TheUKBArefused99%ofclaimsplacedontheDFT.The issuewas verymuchon the radarof variousNGOs.DetentionAction inparticularhadpublishedresearchontheDFTin201144,andtheMigrants’LawProjecthadbeendoingworkwithFreedomfrom

43 Table taken from a report by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration Inspection of Removals (October 2014 – March 2015) 44 Fast Track to Despair: The unnecessary detention of asylum seekers, 2011 http://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FastTracktoDespair-printed-version.pdf


30

TortureandMedicalJusticeaboutbringingchallengesinindividualcases.TherewasaspecificcaseofawomaninUgandawhohadaRule35report45andtheMigrants’LawProjectwasseriouslyconsideringlitigating:“butthemorewethoughtaboutit,themorewethoughtthatthoughwecouldsetitupasacaseitwaslikelythattheHomeOfficewouldconcede”.TheMigrants’LawProjectthendiscussedthepossibilityof takingacasewithDetentionActionastheclaimant. They decided to progress – at this point through conditional fee agreements – andrepresentedDetentionActioninaJudicialReviewclaimwhichchallengedtheDFTasunfairandunlawfulinDecember2013.Theprincipal judgment in thatcasewashandeddownonthe9th July2014,and itfound that there were “serious failings” in the system, particularly in relation to the long delaysaccessing legal advice. However though this judgment was damning, the fear was that the currenttrajectoryof litigationwasgoingtoresult insuccessive judgmentswhich foundvariousaspectsof theDFT unlawful, but which then confirmed the HomeOffice’s capacity to remedy this unlawfulness byeffectivelymakingsmallchangeshereandthere.ThiswouldnotachievetheultimategoalofabolishingtheDFTaltogether.“Wehadbeenstartingtodespair.TheHomeOfficedidunlawfulstuffondetention,wewouldlitigate,thecourtwouldsay‘this littlethingisunlawful,thisthingisunlawful’andtheHOwasmakingsmallchangesandcarryingon regardless.Thenightmarewas thatyou litigateagainandagain, thecourtcannever findtheprocessunlawfulandtheHomeOffice justcarriesonhavingtweakedthesystem.Wewerepanickingthatwewerecommittingourselvestodoingthisforever”(Grantee)

• SLF-fundedwork

Aconsiderableamountofworkhad thereforealreadybeendoneby the timeagrantof£15,594wasawardedtotheMigrants’LawProject(IslingtonLawCentre)inNovember2014.BythispointtheyhaddecidedtotryandchallengetheDFTfromadifferentangle.SLFfundingwassoughttofirstlyinvestigatewhethertheJudgmenthandeddownbyJusticeOuseleyhadresultedinthepracticespronounced‘unlawful’inthe9Julyjudgmentbeingtackled.Therewerereportsfrom various NGOs and lawyers that the judgment had not changed much and that a range ofdiscriminatorypracticeswerecontinuingunabated.MLP andDetention Actionwanted to check outwhether this impressionwas right, amass a body ofevidence that the DFT was still resulting in unlawful and discriminatory practices and if, as theysuspected, thiswas the case restore thematterback to theAdministrativeCourt. Thiswaswhatoneperson called “the master stroke”: not to claim against the Home Office as before, but against theTribunals (First Tier and Upper) and the Lord Chancellor. By so doingMLPwould be challenging theongoinguseoftheFastTrackRulesdespitetheoperationoftheprocesshavingbeenfoundunlawful.“Thatwasareallyradicalstroke.Whenweputourclaimin,theHomeOfficetoldusweweremadandtold the court it was preposterous. They said we were just litigating the same issue we lost onpreviously,butwithafantasydefendantinsteadofthem.Inonesenseitwasaveryunorthodoxmoveandweweretakingarisk.”(Grantee)

Thefundingenabledthemtodothat.Itinvolveddetailedresearchwork.TheysetupanonlinegrouptolinkpractitionersandNGOsacross thecountry toco-ordinate information-sharingabouthowtheDFTwas working in practice. They submitted FOI requests, analysed information gathered by DetentionAction, liaised with the Home Office through regular meetings and analysed statistical data. A hugeamountof informationwas rapidlygatheredandprocessedandultimately theprocess led tobriefingcounselinpreparationforbringingaclaim.Thehearingwasheld inMay2015andthejudgmentwashandeddownthreeweeks lateronthe12thJune 2015. The judgment found that the Fast Track Ruleswereultra viresand suspended them. Thegovernment’sappeal to theCourtofAppealwasthendismissed,withLordDysonrulingthat theFast

45 Rule 35 reports are the reports of people who say they might have been tortured. There is a medical view that such people should be released from prison.


31

TrackRuleswereinfactunlawful.TheDetainedFastTrackwassuspendedandwaseffectivelyatanendafternearly15years.

• OutcomesandimpactTheimmediateoutcomeofthefundingwasthatthelegalchallengecouldberampedupjustatpointinthecampaignagainsttheDFTwhenitwasparticularlyneeded.“IsupposewhatIwouldemphasiseisthehugeamountsofpreparationwhichwentonfromthestartandthroughouttheproject–bothbeforeandaftertheSLFgrantstarted.Ateachstagetherewasahugeamountofworkjusttomastertheterrain,haveaccesstoalltheinformationandevidenceandimproviseandreadaptlegalargumentstothechangingsituation.Thegrantkickedinatthecrucialmoment.Wehadwononthefirstroundandtherewouldhavebeenahugetemptationtoquitwhilstwewereahead.CertainlytheHOwasconvincedthatwewouldleaveit.ButSonal’smasterstrokewastoattackitthroughadifferentangle.

IthinkthattheinvolvementofSLFallowsthatkindofstrategising,thinkingapproachratherthanthemorereactivebarebonesapproachwhichistherealityofmostlitigationthesedays.”(Grantee)

In terms of immediate and longer term impact, individual migrants are clearly benefitting from theoutcomeofthelegalchallenge.Atthetimeofsubmittingthefinalreport,300peoplehadbeenreleasedfrom detention, and those asylum seekers who remain detained and have rights of appeal are nowhavingtheirappealsheardunderthePrincipalAppealsProcedureRules.Inaddition,manyyoungmigrantswereaffectedovertheyearsbytheunfairnessoftheDetainedFastTrackprocess.4,286asylumseekersweredetainedontheFastTrackin2013alone46.Asweknowthataround23%ofallknownmaleasylumseekersand21%offemaleasylumseekersareagedbetween18and24,itisareasonableestimatethatthousandsofyoungmigrantshavebeensubjectedtoFastTrackRules, and the denial of access to justice, enforced isolation and denial of liberty which theserepresented.Thelongertermimpactisthereforetohavepreventedthislevelofdiscrimination,andtohaverestoredincreasedaccesstojustice.Thecasealsogarneredconsiderablemediainterest,raisingtheissueofdetentionandtheexperienceofasylumseekers.Interestinglyitalsoappearstohavehadtheoutcomeofimprovingthereputationandtraction of the key stakeholders who brought forward the claim. They have proved themselvesformidableopponents.DetentionActionfeelsthattheirrelationshipwiththeHomeOfficehasshiftedagear.“Wehadalwaysassumed that [theHomeOffice]wouldhateus ifwewonand thatwouldbeaproblemforpartofourstrategyaroundengagement.Butinfactitwastheotherwayround.Ithinktheypartlytalkedtousbecausewemadethem,butalsotheyfearedus,andwealsodemonstratedthatwewerereasonableandconstructiveandabletoengagewiththeirconcerns.Theytakeusmoreseriouslynow.”However,morerecentlytheMinistryofJusticehasstartedconsultingonanewFastTrackforthoseindetention.BuoyedbythesuccessesofthestringoflitigationandthefundamentalconflictbetweentheHome Office’s aims and fairness for clients, NGOs are coordinating responses to thwart thereintroduction.

Casestudy6:Gainingthechancetostudyforyoungmigrants

• BackgroundUntil September 2012, people with discretionary leave to remain (DLR) were eligible for studentsupport47.ThismeantthatyoungmigrantswithDLRcouldaccessstudentloans.Howeverin2012,these

46 The Detained Fast Track and the Parliamentary Inquiry, March 2015 by Detention Action 47 Under para5 s1 of the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2009.


32

regulationswereamended48,whichremovedpeoplewithDLRfromthedefinitionof ‘eligiblestudent’.This meant that since 2012, students with DLR could no longer access any form of student finance,effectivelydenyingthemtherighttoattendhighereducation.JustforKidsLawhadreceivedabout40referralstotryandhelpyoungpeopleinthissituationsince2012.Theyincreasinglyrealisedaconcertedchallengetothenewruleswasneededifasignificantnumberofyoungmigrantswerenottobeshutoutfromhighereducation.

• SFL-fundedworkCoincidentally,acase49takenbya20yearoldyoungwoman50fromYorkcalledBeaurishTigere,whohadarrivedfromZambiawhenshewassixandlivedintheUKeversince,wasbeingappealedbytheSupremeCourt.JustforKidsLawwasgiven£9,666inJanuary2015toresearchandgatherevidenceforaThirdPartyInterventiontosupportTigere’sSupremeCourtcase.Theirstrategywasbothtogatherdetailedevidenceabouttheimpactofthecurrentregulations,andtoharnessmediaattentiontohighlighttheissuesraised.Theygathereddetailedcasestudiesfromover30youngpeopleaffectedby their inability toaccess student finance, commissionedanexpert reportonthe valueof higher education to society, sent FOI requests to try and identify thenumbers of youngpeopleaffected,andtookdetailedwitnessstatementsfromarangeofpeopleawareoftheextentandimpactoftheregulations.The case was attracting attention. One of the people who spoke out was the headmaster ofMossbourneacademy,aflagshipacademyinWestLondon.Oneoftheirpupilshadhadtoturndownaplace at Imperial College to study chemistry because he only had DLR. The headmaster’s statementaskedwhyschoolslikehiswerebotheringtotryandinspireandeducateyoungpeopleiftheywerethentohavetheirchancesscupperedbysuchregulations.“Hemadeastrongstatement.Heasked‘Whatisthepointinusevenexistinginthosecircumstances?’”(Grantee)Intandemwithandinspiredbythischallenge,theLetusLearncampaign51wassetupbyanotheryoungwomanunabletotakeupherplaceatuniversityasaresultoftheregulations.ChrisannJarrettsayshowherdiscoverythatshewasbarredfromhighereducation“ignitedacampaigningfire”andwithothersshesetupasupportgrouptoreachouttoyoungmigrantsinsimilarsituations.Thishadthebenefitforthelegalworkofgarneringmoreevidence,andforthepublicityworkofhavingpeoplewhocouldraisetheissuepassionatelywithselectedmedia.Theycampaignedunderthebanner‘Young,GiftedandBlocked’andheldasmallandpeacefulprotestoutsidethecourtwhenthecasewasheardonthe24thand25thJune2015,aswellasattendingtheproceedings.TheirprotestwasjoinedbyseveralMPs,includingPeterKyle,DavidLammyandDianneAbbott.“ItwasveryinspiringtoseethemoutsidetheSupremeCourt.TheywereoutthereintheirT-shirts,allso different, talking in a range of different accents from all over theworld. Intelligent and capableyoungpeople.”(InternalStakeholder)

TheJudgmentwashandeddownonthe29thJuly.UnusuallythecourtphonedJustforKidsLawtotellthemthis:itseemedtheyhadbeenstruckbytheinterestandpassionoftheyoungpeopleandwantedtokeepthemuptodate.LadyHalegavethe leading judgment in frontofa fullcourtwhichconfirmedthatthestudentfinanceregulations breachedMs Tigere’s convention rights. The Judgewas visiblymovedwhen she saw theyoungpeopleburstintotearsofjoyatthechanceofgoingtouniversity.SubsequentlyJustforKidsLawhashadaneventattheHouseofLordsandLordKerr,oneoftheotherjudgesinthecase,attendedtogiveoutleadershipcertificates.

48 By the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 49 R(Tigere) v SSBIS [2014] EWCA Civ 1216 50 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/29/immigration-student-loan-supreme-court-beaurish-tigere 51 http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/09/10/former-hackney-schoolgirl-starts-campaign-let-us-learn-migrant-students-higher-education/


33

Thenewruleshavenowbeenintroduced.BIS52didaconsultationfollowingtherulingonwhatthenewrulesshouldlooklikeandinitiallywasquiterestrictiveinwhattheyproposed.IntheirfirstversionBISwantedtherulestobethatindividualshadbeenlawfullypresentforhalftheirlife.JustforKidsLawdidasubmissionhoweverpointingouthowcomplexthiswouldbeandBISrevisedtherules.Thesituationnowisthatyoungpeoplehavetohavethreeyearsof‘lawfulresidence’toaccessthestudentfinance.

• OutcomeandimpactTherehavebeenarangeofpositiveoutcomesandlongertermimpactsfromthework.TheregulationshavebeenchangedanditisnowpossibleforyoungpeoplewithDLRwhoareresidentfor three years to get student finance and thus attend higher education. It is not known howmanypeoplethisaffects,butthenumberswillpotentiallyrunintothousands.Thereareanestimated120,000undocumentedor irregular youngmigrants in theUK, andover time someof thesewill gainDLR,belawfullyresidentandapercentagewillwanttogoontostudy.Certainly the experience of Just for Kids law backs up a hidden world of young people who werefrightenedtorevealtheirstatus.“Wehavebeenreachingouttoschoolstofindotheryoungpeopleinasimilarsituationtothem.Whatwefoundwasthatmanyhadkeptthisstuffasecretandhadn’teventoldtheirclosestfriendsthattheyare not British. This judgment has given them an opportunity to ‘come out’. Let Us Learn is goingaroundschoolsinformingyoungerchildrenandprovidingasafespaceforthemtocometowithotherpeople like them. They had ameeting here onWednesday nightwhere 30 young people turned upincludingfiveyoungpeoplewhohadneverbeenpartofthegroupbefore.Whichiskindofamazing.”(Grantee)

Anotherintervieweehadanexperienceofayoungpersoninthissituation.“Imetayoungwomanwhowasverydepressedbecauseofthisissue.Shehad30monthsleaveandhermumwassaying‘Ihavetowatchher,sheisgoingtodosomethingtoherself’becauseshewassodownaboutit.Thecourtrulingcamethroughandshewasecstatic-acompletelydifferentwoman.”The LetUs Learnmovement itself is another outcomeof having taken thiswork forward and is nowbeing funded by Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Just for Kids Law is now in contact with over 400 youngpeopleandthereareacoregroupof20youngpeopleworkingtohelpothers insituations liketheirs.“Thenextstepfor themis thattheyaregoingtotryandpersuadeuniversities toofferscholarshipstopeopleintheirsituations”.Ithasaffectedsomeoftheyoungpeopleataprofoundlevelwhohaveseenforthefirsttimeasystemwhich,ratherthandealoutknockbacks,dealsoutfairness.“They’vehaddifficultiesalltheirlivesfromofficials, and then theyattend the SupremeCourtanda Judge says ‘you’re right,webelieve that youshouldhaveafairchancetoo.’It’squiteabigdeal.”Morebroadlythecasegainedmuchmediaattention,featuringinmostofthequalitynationalpressandBBCandITVTVbroadcasts.Oneofthethingsaboutthiswasthatitwasapositivestoryaboutmigrationrunningcountertothegeneralnegativetrendofreporting.Whoknowshowfarthishashadaneffecton the perception of those who picked up on the issue, but interestingly Just for Kids Law recentlyconductedthreefocusgroupswiththegeneralpublicabout issuesaffectingyoungchildren intheUK.Onlyoneofthese–thisissue–concernedmigrantsanditwastheonewhichelicitedmostsympathy.

Case study 7: Trying to get justice for victims of trafficking indiplomatichouseholds

• Background

52 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills


34

Therearemanymigrantdomesticworkers(MDWs) intheUK53.Theissueofprotectionforthosewhoare being exploited as victims of trafficking (VOT) has been under scrutiny in recent times with theModernSlaveryBillandtherehavebeenconcernsraisedaboutthoseparticularlyvulnerabletoabusebecausetheyareemployedindiplomatichouseholds.This is because there are few if any protections for trafficked domestic workers in diplomatichouseholds.Yettheyareextremelyvulnerabletoexploitation–theyaretiedtotheiremployersunderthevisaarrangements,andtheiremployershavediplomaticimmunitymeaningthatthereisnoredressagainstabuses.The problem had been raised in the case of Al-Maliki v Reyes & Suryadi UKEAT/0403/12/GEwhichDeightonPierceGlynn(DPG)hadtakenforwardin2014.Thecaseconcernedtwodomesticworkerswhohadescaped fromtheiremploymentbySaudidiplomats, soughthelpandbeenrecognisedasVOTbytheHomeOfficeundertheinternationaldefinitionoftrafficking.Thecasesoughttodemonstratethatemployerswhomistreatandexploitemployees,manyofwhommaybeyoungandwhomayhavebeentrafficked,cannotrelyondiplomaticimmunityasadefencetocompensationclaims.In the end, Ms Reyes brought a case for unpaid wages as this was the only way she would getcompensationfortheexperienceofbeingtrafficked.ShesucceededinheremploymenttribunalbuttheCourtofAppealsaidthatshecouldnottakeacivilclaimowingtodiplomaticimmunity.“TheCourtoftheAppealside-steppedtheissuethatthediplomatsweredoingthetraffickingandtheytreated themas theendconsumersofa taintedproduct. Itwasas if theywere the innocentpartiesratherthantheonesdoingthetrafficking.”(Grantee)

• SLF-fundedwork

TheSLFsupportedtheoriginalinterventiononbehalfofKalayaan54in2013–14.DPGthenreturnedtotheSLFforfurther£13,330 inMarch2015(PhaseThree)tohelpfundaThirdParty Intervention inanappealagainst theCourtofAppeal’sdecisionat theSupremeCourt.Thiswouldchallenge thecentralpoint of whether diplomatic immunity affords a defence to a civil claim by a person who has beentraffickedbythediplomatemployer.TheyappliedforpermissiontointerveneandhavebeenbuildingontheresearchwhichSLFfundinghadalreadyenabled.Thishasinvolvedlookingatcomparativeexamplesofstateimmunity.Permissionhadnot been granted at the time of the evaluation, but it is likely that it will be given permission wasgrantedattheCourtofAppeal.ThecasehasnotbeenscheduledyetbutDPGnotesthat:“Thereisapowerfulpublicpolicyargumentpushingagainstthecourtfindinginfavourofhumanrightsprotections given the situation regarding diplomatic immunity. But equallywewould say there is amuchmoreremediesbasedapproachemergingfromdifferentjurisdictionsaroundtheworld.Sopartofthiscasewillbetohighlightacomparativelawanalysis.WeengagedtheresearchteamatOxfordUniversitytodothisforusandtheyproducedagoodreportlookingatdifferentcountriesandseeingwhat the situation is there. Our evidence showed that this this type of trafficking is amulti-billiondollarindustry–anillicitindustry,butanindustrynonetheless.Andoneoftheexceptionstodiplomaticimmunityisifadiplomatisengagedincommercialfunctionsoutsidetheirdiplomaticrole.Itisafairlysimpleargumentandacommonsenseone.SowhatwearetryingtoestablishintheSupremeCourtisthatthereisaconsensusininternationallawthatthereisaprohibitionontrafficking,thattraffickingitselfisaformofslavery,andthatthisactivityhasnothingwhatevertodowiththeprimaryfunctionofadiplomat.”

• Outcomeandimpact

53 16,000 visas for MDWs were granted in 2011 54 Kalayaan is a small London based oragnisation campaigning for and with migrant domestic workers. http://www.kalayaan.org.uk


35

Thereareasyetno legalorpolicyoutcomesfromtheworkthoughamassofmaterialevidencingthecurrentsituationasregardsmigrantdomesticworkersindiplomatichouseholdshasbeencollected,andacomparativeanalysisofthelawregardingdiplomaticimmunityhasbeenconducted.Theintervention,whenithappens,willallowtheissuetobehighlightedandtheneedfortheprotectionofsuchworkerscanbe aired. In addition, the interventionwill potentially “enable the court tohighlight the extremerevulsionwehavetohumantraffickingandthatthisshouldapplynomatterwhoisdoingit.”It isdifficult toknowhowmanypeoplewouldbeaffected if theSupremeCourthearing is successful.“Theproblemisthattheyareanunderreportedgroup.Theydon’thaveaccesstoremedies,theycan’tgethelpandtheyknowtheycan’tandtheyarestuckwiththeiremployer.So it ishardtoestimateorextrapolate the numberswhichmight be affected. Butwe do know that diplomaticmissions do havedomesticstaff,andweknowtherearealargecross-sectionofcountrieswherethestaffaremistreated.ThisisillustratednotjustintheUKbutaroundtheworld.Andgiventhatthediplomaticcommunityisinessence an international community, any challenge to the veil of diplomacy could have repercussionsandimplicationsacrosstheworld.”

Casestudy8:OperationNexus

• BackgroundOperationNexus isaflagshipgovernment initiative launchedatthestartofSeptember2012totarget“the increasing number of high-harm FNOs55 and immigration offenders in London.”56 It is a jointcampaignbythePoliceandBorderForce,andwaspartofaninitiativebythegovernmenttoshowthattheyweregettingtoughonmigrants:thisled,inthefollowingyear,totheshort-livedandill-advised‘GoHomeVans’.Itaimstodeportmoreforeignnationalsregardedas‘highharm’,andafteritsinitialtrialinLondonisbeingexpandedandrolledoutaroundthecountry57.AnFOI request in2015 revealed that from2012–2014,246EEAnationalsweredeportedunder thescheme58,andtherehasbeenanincreasingconcernthatthepolicemaybetargetingEEAnationals.TheHomeOfficeacknowledgesthatPolandandRomaniafallunderthetop10countriesfordeportations.ThesetendtobeyoungerthantheUKpopulationingeneral.OperationNexuswasoriginallyonlymeanttotargethighharmindividualsandthosewhodonothavethe‘righttoremain’.Howeverthedefinitionsofwhocanbedetainedanddeportedarelooselydefinedand creeping in scope. Individual police forces define what constitutes a ‘high harm’ individual, andthereismountingevidencethatindividualsarebeingtargetedfordeportationforreasonswhicharenotlinkedtotheircriminalactivitybutratherastheirstatusasamigrant.ThisseemstobethesituationinthecaseofDanielGardonyi,forexample,aHungarianbornactivist59who does not claim benefits, and whose only ‘crime’ has been to be arrested at peaceful protestsagainst,forexample,austerityandthelossofpublichousing.TheAIRECentre,amongstotherNGOs,hasbeennotingthecreepinguseofpolicepowersinrelationtoOperationNexuswithconcern.“Thepoliceare suchan importantbody. Sowhen theyget involved inimmigration it needs to be carefully thought out. The concern is that Operation Nexus is legitimisingimmigrationenforcementinthenameofdealingwithcriminals.”

• SLF-fundedwork

55 Foreign National Offender 56 Taken from the government website news article published under the Coalition Government https://www.gov.uk/government/news/operation-nexus-results-in-more-than-175-removals 57 To the cities of the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Scotland, Merseyside, Cleveland, Kent, West Yorkshire, Cheshire, and Wales initially, and more recently to Avon and Somerset and the East Midlands and Lancashire. 58 93 Romanians, 57 Poles, 40 Lithuanians and 12 Latvians just from London. To this can be added 229 Albanians and 53 Ukrainians. 59https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/17/law-abiding-activist-faces-deportation-from-uk


36

TheSLFhadalreadyfundedworkbyLuqmaniThompson&PartnersinJuly2014whichfocusedonthepotential infringement of a right to a fair trial for those targeted by Operation Nexus. LuqmaniThompson’sbriefingpaperprovidedwhattheydescribedas“abasisforotherstomoveforwards”,butacknowledged that sincedeportation law isnotcoveredby legalaidanychallengewasunlikely tobetakenforwardbythem.TheAIRECentrehadseenthisresearch,butwantedtofocusontheapparenttargetingofEEAnationals.Astheypointedoutintheirapplication,thiswouldpotentiallyevidenceawiderrangeofinfringementsgiven thegreaterprotectionEEAnationalsenjoyunderEU law (and thusa legal casewouldbemorelikely).TheAIRECentrewasawarded£10,942inJune2015toconductpre-litigationresearch.TheirhypothesiswasthatOperationNexuswasbeingusedtotarget individualsfromcertainnationalities(inparticularRoma, and those of Polish, Romanian and Lithuanian backgrounds) who are low level offenders andhomeless in order to remove them from the country. In particular they thought that there was“insidiousstuffwherethe‘righttobehere’wasbeinginterpretedbroadlyas‘notexercisingconventionrights’”.Sotheyneededtogatherinformationwhichshowedifthatwastrue. “Thepolicyissovagueandopaquethatweknewitwashappeningbutcouldnotpinitdown.Ispoketoanumberofbarristersandsolicitorsandeverybodywasupsetaboutit,butittakesalotmoreworkthan just knowing about a few clients who have been impacted by Operation Nexus to proceed tolitigation. We needed research to understand the scope of the operation and find out what’shappening‘outthere’comparethattowhattheHomeOfficewassayingwashappening.”(Grantee)

ThefundingenabledthemtoliaisewiththeOperationNexusCommunityReferenceGroupsandputoutacallforevidencetogatherinexamplesofhowthepolicywasbeingenacted‘ontheground’.Theysetup a referral system to linkwith organisations around the countryworkingwith clients impacted byOperationNexus.Callsforinformationwentoutthrougharangeofsocialmediaplatforms.The information gathered from this, combinedwith a series of targeted FOI requests and interviews,producedasignificantamountofinformation–muchmorethantheyhadoriginallyanticipated.Theworkillustratedthechallengeoftryingtouncoverandevidencetheeffectsofapolicy,thepracticeofwhichisdiffuseandoftenhidden.ItwasfurthercomplicatedbythefactthatOperationNexusis(intheory,anyway)targetinganunpopulargroupofmigrants:highharmoffendersandthosewho‘shouldnotbehere’.Theresearchwassensitive,andtheAIRECentrekeptalowprofilebecauseofthis.Theyweremotivated,however,byexamplessuchasClientS.Convicted foracrimewherehecaused‘unintentionalharm’,his fiancée(whohas IndefiniteLeavetoRemain)hasbeenbattlingonhisbehalfworkingwiththeAIRECentreforseveralmonths.“[When convicted] he had been in the UK for 20 years. But he doesn’t have a British Passport. HeworkedfortheRomaSupportGroupfortenyears.Whenhewassentenced,thesentenceseemedtobehigh for what he had done – we think he may have been given a sentence which could ‘trigger’Operation Nexus or something like that. He got 12 months, whereas usually sentences would beshorter.Andthenafter2or3weeks inprisonhereceiveda letter fromtheHOsayinghemightbe liable fordeportation.Assoonashereceivedit,wepanicked.Ourdaughteristhreeyearsold,andifeitherofuswentback toPolandtherewouldbenothingthere forus– this isourhome.WecontactedtheAIRECentre,andtheytookonhiscase.Theygotthedeportationremoved.He’scomingoutinearlyAugust,I’msohappy.”(ClientaffectedbyOperationNexus)

Withinformationcominginthickandfast,theAIRECentreappliedtotheSLFforanextensiongrantof£5,637 in March 2016 which they got. This enabled them to finish sorting information and to startpreparing for a case. Theyhaddevelopeda clearmatrix to enable them to identify test casesduringtheirpre-litigationresearchwork.


37

• OutcomeandimpactThework theAIRECentrehasbeendoing in this areahashelped them takeon and argue cases likeClientS.Throughtheirreferralsystem,severalclientshavealreadygainedsupportandhelpbygettingintouch.IthasalsobuiltupasubstantialbodyofevidencetoprimeaJudicialReview,andDeightonPierceGlynnisnowjustabouttolaunchproceedingsrepresentingtheAIRECentreagainsttheHomeOfficeandthepolice.“We are challenging the lack of a transparent policy and the systematic way in which rights ofresidentsarebeingverifiedcontrarytotheprohibitionofthatcontainedintheCitizen’sdirective.Theresearchhasprovideduswithalotofessentialdataandinformation.WithoutthetimeandeffortoftheAIREcentregoing to the stakeholdermeetingswewouldn’thave theevidencebaseonwhich tobasetheJR,withoutadoubt.Thebestoutcomeof thecasewouldbe that therewillnotbea systematicverificationof rightsandthattheHomeOfficeandthepolicewillact inaccordancewiththeir legalpowers,ratherthanwhattheyaredoingnowwhichweconsidertobeunlawful.”

Asaoffshootofthisprocess,theAIRECentrehasusedtheCrowdJusticefundraisingsite60forthefirsttimetotakethecaseforward.Throughthistheyhaveraised£6,000frompublicdonations.“It’sthefirsttimewe have used this and it’s been great, actually”. It has thus helped theAIRE Centre trial a newfundraisingmethod,andtheywereparticularlysurprised,giventhepotentiallyunpopularnatureofthetargetgroup,thattheyraisedthefundseasily.For now,DPGand theAIRECentre think there is nowa good chance that this opaquebutdamagingpolicy,which is resulting in lowharm individualsbeing targeted fordeportation,will receivea robustchallenge.

60 https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/operation-nexus/


38

Section4:KeyfindingsKeyfindingsfromtheevaluationarethat:

1. Widerangeofoutcomesandactualorpotentialimpact.TheSLFhascontributedtoarangeofactualandpotentialoutcomeswhichhaveaffectedorcouldaffectyoungmigrants.Thesehavebeenatlegal,policyandpracticelevel.

2. Legal challenge brings about changes impossible through other means. For the young

migrantsaffected,theimpactofworktakenforwardhasbeeninsomeinstancesprofoundasithas fundamentally changed their circumstances in awaywhich support or informationworkcouldnothave.

3. TheSLFillustratesinparttheenormousdiversityofthemigrantpopulationandthelawsandpolicieswhichaffectthem.Theworkfundedisstillverylargelydirectedtowardsthosewhoareseriously disadvantagedbut there are others, such as the young students helped by Just forKids Law, who are not necessarily facing extreme disadvantage but are nevertheless beingdeprivedoftheirequalrightsbecauseoftheirmigrantstatus.

4. For the fundingmadeavailable, the ‘hit rate’hasbeen remarkablyhigh. This ispartly todo

with theassessmentprocesswhich screensoutunstrategicprojects,but itmayalso indicateincreasingvigourand robustnessof the legal casesbeing researchedandargued.ThirdPartyinterventions are particularly effective in helping courts understand how some laws andpoliciesareresultingindisadvantageanddiscriminationforindividualyoungmigrants.

5. Thelevelofimpactcannotbegaugedbytheamountoffundinginvested.Arguablythemost

profoundimpact(intermsofnumbersaffected)hasbeenthenumberofpeoplestillreceivinglegalaidasaresultofhavingsuccessfullychallengedtheresidencetest.Hereaveryminimalamountoffundingkick-startedthechallenge,butinvestedatatimelypointintheprocess.

6. SLF funding is enabling useful injections of research and thinking time at all stages of the

process. SLF fundinghasbeensoughtatvarious stages ina challenge’sprogression, rangingfromfundingtopumpprimeachallengefromtheoutset(aswithBindmans,andthenonoticeremovals policy when this was reintroduced) to applying for funding when the challenge isalreadyseveralmonthsorevenyearsin,aswiththeDetainedFastTrackchallenge.

7. Research clarifying migrant support and entitlements may feed policy more than legal

challenge.Variousprojectshavebeenfundedtoenabletheclarificationoftheoperationofapieceoflegislation,policyandpractice,inparticulararoundeligibilityforandtheprovisionofsupportformigrants.TheHackneyCommunityLawCentrework,GMIAUreportandtheASAPworkareexamplesofthis.SuchprojectsarenecessarilylooserintermsoftheirlegaltrajectoryandmaynotyethavedevelopedintolitigationfundedbytheSLF,butarefeedingorcouldfeedpolicy and legal work elsewhere at least in part. Such research is particularly useful whereclientcasesarenoteligible for legalaid,andfindingout informationofwhat ishappeningtoclientsisthusparticularlychallenging.

8. Increasing hostility tomigrants is resulting inmore work. The government’s stated aim of

makingtheenvironment‘hostiletomigrants’isstimulatingworkasorganisationsarehavingtorespond to new policies and practice which seemingly depart from domestic and EU law.Policies are being introduced quickly, rushed through or are expanding in scope: LandlordChecks, Operation Nexus and NHS patient confidentiality are examples of this. Hereorganisations funded by the SLF are fighting a rearguard action, aware of the actual andpotentialnegativefalloutbuthavingtoworkhardtogetsufficientevidencetomounta legalchallengeandpullthegovernmentbackintoline.Theonlyeffectivechallengesuchpolicieswillreceivewillbelegal:nothingelseisgoingtoworkgiventhestatedintentionofthegovernmentinapost-referendumenvironment.Thecourtsreallyarethe‘thinredline’.


39

9. Itisnotpossibletosecondguesstherangeofbenefitswhichmayflowfromaprojectattheoutset.Thereareanumberofprojectswhichare,forexample,feedingintooneanotherastheworkoftheSLFprogresses.Inaddition,someprojectshavehadtochangetackastheworkhasprogressed because of developments elsewhere, changes in court scheduling or new law orpoliciesbeingintroduced.

10. Organisationsaregainingfrombeingfundedanddoingthework.Someare learning,othersare creating new relationships, others learning new information and skills, others gaining ahigherprofileandreputation.

11. Someorganisationshaveoraredevelopinganicheandskillsaroundtakingforwardstrategiclegalworkinthisarea.Thevalueoftryingtoattract‘new’organisationstotakeforwardlegalchallenges isdebatedby those involved inor fundedby theSLF.Somefeel it is important tokeep expanding potential challengers, others feel that at this point consolidation is what isneeded given the unprecedented attack onmigrants’ rights, only set to get worse with theintroductionoftheImmigrationAct.

12. TheSLFcouldbemorestrategicoverall.Intervieweeswereaskingwhether‘pickingoff’oftenrecondite-seeminglegalpointswasthewayforward,orwhethertheSLFneededtothinkmorebroadlyabouthowitcouldhaveamoreproactive impactonthepolicyandlegalcontext.Onbalance the view was that it needed to do both: for the foreseeable future, and given thehostileenvironment, thegains tobehadbydefendingmigrants’ rights ineverywaypossiblerequire legalvigilanceandvigourandchallengesneed tobemounted inalldirectionsThis ispartly because the reality formigrants is gettingworse and the political will to engage at apolicy leveltochangethings intheirfavour isvirtuallynonexistent.Thatsaid,somefeelthattheSLFcouldbenefit fromhavingsomethinkingspacetoreflectasa fundandconsiderhowbest toassertmigrants’ rights in the longer termgivendemographicchanges,movementsofrefugees and the fact that increasingly the body of laws, rules and regulations affectingmigrants can be viewed as ‘unfit for purpose’ given its complexity. This could potentiallyhappenbyholding for instanceanannualconferenceto lookat lessons fromothercountriesanddiscussstrategicissuesacrossthefield.


40

AppendixA:MethodologyTheapproachwasqualitativeinnatureandthemethodologycomprised:Initialscoping

• ScopingouttheevaluationwithTrustforLondonSLFco-ordinator• LiaisonwithTrustforLondonSLFco-ordinatorandMigrationWorkCICaroundtheselectionof

casestudies• Preliminary interviewwithTrust forLondonSLFco-ordinatorabout thescopingand issues to

becoveredintheevaluationFieldworkBetweenMarchandMay2016fieldworkwascarriedoutasfollows:

• Documentreview:areviewofallpapers,includingallprojectapplicationsandreporting,fromthe18projectsfundedduringPhaseThreeandthefiveprojectsselectedascasestudiesfundedprior to Phase Three. This included reports, press articles and additional information wherepossible.

• Onlinesearchesforinformationabouttheselectedprojects• AttendanceatameetingofgranteesheldatPaulHamlynFoundationonthe3rdMay2016at

whichprojectsreportedbackonprogressandoutcomesfromtheworktheyhadundertaken• 29semi-structuredtelephoneinterviewslastingbetween20minutesandtwohoursincluding:

o 9interviewswithinternalstakeholders(FundersandMW)o 7interviewswithExpertPanelmembers.Thoughthiswaspredominantlyabouttheir

experienceofthemanagementoftheSLF(whichwasreportedinthecomplementaryreportsonthemanagementofthefund)

o 13 individual interviews in relation to eight projects chosen as case studies. Themaximum number of people interviewed per project was three: one person wasinterviewedinrelationtotwoprojects.

DataanalysisandreportingAnapproachtodataanalysisknownas‘opencoding’,whichisdefinedas:“Anon-mathematicalprocessofinterpretation,carriedoutforthepurposeofdiscoveringconceptsandrelationshipsinrawdataandthenorganisingtheseintoanexplanatoryscheme…Thekeyideaofgroundedtheoryisthattheprocessesofdatacollectionanddataanalysisareintimatelyconnected,eachinformingandguidingtheother.”61Opencodingisusedinacademicqualitativeresearchtodeveloptypologiesandtheoreticalframeworks.However,forthepurposesofthisevaluationwetriedtouseittodrawoutfindingsandlessonswhichwillbepracticallyusefulfortheSLFmanagementgroupandfunders.Findingswerepresentedinadraftreport inearlyAugust2016andthesewererevisedinconsultationwithfundersandpartners.TwocomplementaryreportsonthemanagementandfocusoftheSLFhadbeenwrittenandsubmittedearlier(June2016).

61 Strauss,A. andCorbin, J, BasicsofQualitativeResearchTechniques andProcedures forDevelopingGroundedTheory(2ndedition,London:Sage,1998)


41

AppendixB:IntervieweesName Organisation RoleBowman,Laura EsmeeFairbairnFoundation Funder

Canning,Sean HackneyCommunityLawCentre Grantee

CherrylMogan,Audrey AIRECentre Grantee

Churchill,Sioned TrustforLondon Funder

Cox,Simon MigrationLawyer,OpenSocietyJusticeInitiative ExpertPanel

Gellner,Deborah AsylumSupportAppealsProject(ASAP) Grantee

Ghelani,Sonal IslingtonLawCentre Grantee

Gill,Manjit Barrister,No5Chambers Chair,ExpertPanel

Halford,John BindmansLLP Grantee

Harvey,Alison LegalDirector,ImmigrationLawPractitioners’Association ExpertPanel

Hickey,Gerry MigrationWorkCIC SLFProjectManager

Kerr,Steve TrustforLondon Funder

Knights,Samantha Barrister,MatrixChambers ExpertPanel

Lambe,Shauneen JustforKidsLaw Grantee

Lee,Jake Unbound Funder

Lukes,Sue MigrationWorkCIC SLFAdviser

Mehta,Bharat TrustforLondon Funder

Pettifer,Wendy HackneyMigrants’Centre Grantee

Phelps,Jerome DetentionAction Grantee

Pickup,Alison62 Barrister,DoughtyStreetChambers ExpertPanel

Pitchford,Michael JosephRowntreeCharitableTrust Funder

Sandhu,Baljeet Director and Solicitor, MiCLU (Migrant and Refugee

Children'sUnit),IslingtonLawCentre

ExpertPanel

Schleicher,Theresa MedicalJustice Grantee

Singh,Rakesh PublicLawProject Grantee

Sutton,Alex PaulHamlynFoundation Funder

Szoma,Dorota Client Client

Thomson,Kirsty Solicitor,LegalServicesAgencyLtd ExpertPanel

Williams,Hazel AsylumSupportAppealsProject(ASAP) Grantee

Yazdani,Zubier DeightonPierceGlynn Grantee

62 Since the interview, Alison Pickup has become Legal Director at Public Law Project.

Documents

SLF Evaluation Outcome Report 2016 FINAL FINALstrategiclegalfund.org.uk/SLF Evaluation Outcome... · SLF Achievements and Outcomes Evaluation Report 2016 FINAL 6 Section 1: What activity