MK and AH v SSHD

This case brought into focus again the tension that exists between, on the one hand, the obligation of the State to provide temporary accommodation and assistance for those seeking asylum who are or risk being destitute whilst their renewed or fresh application for asylum is considered and, on the other, the desire of the government not to incur considerable public expense in doing so in unmeritorious cases. Following a detailed analysis of the case-law, Foskett J held that the Secretary of State’s policy not to consider section 4 applications for support until a decision had been taken on the fresh application for asylum involved a significant risk that the Article 3 rights of a significant number of section 4 applicants will be breached. The instruction given to case workers by the Secretary of State was therefore declared unlawful.