Following the successful judgment in this case the judge gave a further ruling on 18 July 2022 to decide what the consequences of her judgment would be. We argued that the Home Office's self-granted 5 year planning permission should be quashed, as she had found it to be unlawful. The Home Office argued that quashing was unnecessary as it had now produced a further equalities assessment. It also stated that it would close the camp if the judge quashed the planning permission, even if it was suspended pending an appeal. The judge decided not to quash. The Order is here:

So we have an important judgment finding that the Home Office's decision was made unlawfully and emphasising the importance of properly assessing the equalities impacts of these kinds of policy decisions, which should shape future decision-making in this area. Undoubtedly, the pressure of this litigation (including the work of Humans for Rights Network regarding conditions at Napier) has led to time limits on how long people are housed at the camps and an improvement in conditions.  We have also sent a clear signal that rolling-out asylum camps in this country will be resisted and scrutinised. 

I am considering with my legal team whether the decision not to quash should be appealed to the Court of Appeal.  There is no place for asylum camps in a humane asylum system, and no justification for excluding the planning permission process and the voice that it gives to affected people, including local people in the vicinity of the camps.  Thank you for your support in getting to this point.

I am thrilled to report that the High Court ruled on Friday 24 June 2022 that the Home Secretary had broken equalities law in her decision to grant herself planning permission to use Napier Barracks for a further 5 years from August 2021.  

Mrs Justice Lieven ruled that:

“106... there has been a failure to have proper regard to the [Public Sector Equality Duty]. The caselaw establishes that whether the s.149 duty has been complied with involves a highly fact sensitive inquiry, both into the nature of the decision and the form of the consideration of equality issues. The nature of the development here is one that raises very obvious issues under s.149, in particular relating to potential victimisation and harassment under s.149(1)(a), and the fostering of good relations under s.149(c). The provision of a large amount of segregated accommodation for male asylum seekers on the edge of the town has the obvious potential to create tensions within the local community....

107. ...there is a very significant difference between a development which is proposed to continue for two months and one for five years. This must especially be the case where the issue is developing community relations, as opposed to some physical impact which will vary little over time. Pressure on community services, for example on the local GP and community health services and possibly on the police, will be very much greater over a prolonged period than only two months. The potential for impact on community relations are wholly different over the much longer period...."

After a period of temporary emergency use of the camp as segregated asylum accommodation the August planning permission decision signalled a step-change in how the site was used.  We argued that what was happening at Napier Barracks was a step-change nationally in how asylum seekers were accommodated, and this had to be very carefully assessed and scrutinised. 

The High Court has now found that the equalities impacts of the change at Napier Barracks were not properly assessed.  

Mrs Justice Lieven also refused a government argument that this would make no difference, stating:

"113. I do not consider that this is a case where a fresh decision is highly likely to be the same and that quashing the decision would merely lead to a waste of time and money. It may be that the Defendant would still decide to use Napier Barracks as asylum accommodation. However, given the concerns raised about the impact on community relations of the use, and the complete absence of analysis of the effects of that use over five years on community relations, I am not in a position to say there would be “no difference” to the decision. Even if the substantive decision was the same, there is a real possibility that if proper investigation were made, and the Minister fully appraised as to the Equalities impacts of the development, further mitigation measures might be put in place. An EqIA for the five year use would inevitably consider impacts on local resources and this might well lead to a need to put further investment into those resources in ways that would reduce community impacts."

We are now waiting for the High Court's order to give effect to its judgment, which will likely follow after a further hearing in July 2022.  I will update at that point and about what will happen next in light of the High Court's judgment.

THANK YOU once again for all the support I have received.

Thank you to all who have supported the case so far. Tomorrow, 29 March 2022, we have our day in court at the High Court (Royal Courts of Justice). The trial hearing will last for 2 days.  This follows the High Court granting "Permission for Judicial Review" in December 2021. 

We are arguing that the the Home Office’s decision, without consultation, to continue using Napier Barracks as asylum accommodation for a further five years was unlawful. It breached planning law, ignored the need for environmental assessment, and breached the conditions of the previous - time limited -  emergency planning use. Of course, the inappropriate nature of the accommodation is the context for all of this.

In a bizarre twist, the Home Secretary consulted on her planning decision in January 2022 - i.e. 5 months after making the decision! This was after we got permission for judicial review in this case - coincidence perhaps?  Although we aren't challenging that decision itself, it is a good illustration of the kind of consultation that needed to happen BEFORE making the decision. Local people, and experts on the impact that barracks conditions are having on asylum seekers, still haven't had their say.

Thank you to everyone who has supported the case so far. It means that, at the very least, we have this chance to establish legal accountability for the unprecedented decision to effectively "self-grant" planning permission to run the UK's first "asylum camp" for another 5 years. 

Our team of barristers are from Landmark Chambers (Alex Goodman, Alex Shattock and Charles Bishop), instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors.

We are grateful for all your contributions so far.  We are still fundraising for the second legal challenge, led by Humans for Rights Network, regarding conditions at the camp, which requires the instruction of medical and detention facility experts. So all your contributions are still very welcome. Our legal team are working at highly discounted rates to make sure these cases get to court, but experts must be paid at a market rate.

The High Court has granted permission for our challenge of the Home Office’s decision, without consultation, to continue using Napier Barracks as asylum accommodation for a further five years, to proceed to a full hearing. Thank you so much to everyone who has supported the Crowdjustice campaign so far. We are continuing to fundraise to cover the legal costs of the full hearing which will take place in early 2022 and you can read more about the Court's decision here: https://dpglaw.co.uk/high-court-grants-permission-for-judicial-review-in-legal-challenge-to-longterm-use-of-napier-barracks/

Humans for Rights Network  continue to work on challenging the current conditions at Napier Barracks and are preparing their legal challenge regarding the same. 

Thank you so much for all your support! I have now hit my target for the costs cap and enabled some other costs of the litigation to be paid (my lawyers are working on a heavily discounted basis). We will be issuing our case at Court in the coming days.

I will also share funds with Humans for Rights Network, a grass roots organisation who I work alongside supporting the men accommodated at Napier, and who are launching a second challenge to the ongoing use of Napier Barracks, arguing that conditions at the site and the continuing transfer of vulnerable individuals there breaches the law as it fails to rectify the issues the High Court ruled earlier this year to be unlawful. As I have met my initial target, your kind donations will be used to fund both cases on an approximately 50:50 basis.

You can read more about the Humans for Rights Network challenge here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/napier-barracks-home-office-priti-patel-b1920711.html

Thank you for the support that has started since we launched the page. The case has been covered here:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/news/im-taking-priti-patel-to-court-but-i-need-your-help-253867/

I thought I would also confirm my legal team:

Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors (judicial review specialists, who already acted in the court case which criticised conditions at the barracks)

Landmark Chambers barristers: I have instructed three members of this chambers who are the leading barristers chambers for planning law in the country and are in the best position to argue why the Home Office's self-grant of planning permission is unlawful.