Could the Windrush Scheme be open to legal challenge?

29 May 2018 by

HMT_Empire_Windrush_FL9448.jpgOn 24th May 2018 a new scheme to process citizenship applications for the Windrush generation was announced, after the Government’s apologies last month. The Windrush Scheme guidance explains how this will work in detail.

It is notable that applicants who are refused will have no right of appeal against this decision. The chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Yvette Cooper MP, has tweeted to express her concern about this.

This author suggests that it is arguable that the denial of a right of appeal is open to legal challenge.


How the scheme works

Citizens of Commonwealth countries who were living in the UK before 1 January 1973, plus their children and certain non-Commonwealth citizens will be assessed and issued with proof of British citizenship if they already are British in law, or will be considered for naturalisation if they are not. Those who do not qualify for British citizenship will be assessed to see if they have the right of abode and those who do not qualify for that will be considered for a permit confirming their right to be in the UK under the no time limit biometric residence permit scheme.

This is all explained in detail in this article on Free Movement.

But what about if the Home Office is not satisfied that an applicant meets the scheme?

The guidance states on p. 13 as follows:

Where a person is determined not to be issued with a document under the Windrush Scheme in accordance with this guidance, the decision will not attract a right of appeal or an administrative review.

So a person who is refused will not be able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. They will only be able to challenge the decision by way of judicial review.


The difference between an appeal and a judicial review

Why does this matter? The basic answer is that it is much harder for a claimant to succeed in a judicial review than in an appeal. In an appeal, the judge will make the decision afresh following oral and written evidence. Statistics in March showed that about half of all immigration appeals are successful.

In judicial review, on the other hand, the judge does not step into the shoes of the decision-maker and is tasked instead with evaluating whether the decision was lawful and rational. There is always the possibility that the judge will conclude that whilst the decision is tough, it is still legally watertight. In addition, an applicant must apply for permission before they can get a substantive hearing and an unsuccessful applicant usually pays the Secretary of State’s costs.

So, there is a fair amount riding on the issue of whether a claimant gets an appeal or not.


When is there a right of appeal?

The place to start is section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended in 2014):

(1) A person (“P”) may appeal to the Tribunal where—

(a) the Secretary of State has decided to refuse a protection claim made by P,

(b) the Secretary of State has decided to refuse a human rights claim made by P, or

(c) the Secretary of State has decided to revoke P’s protection status.

A protection claim refers to a claim for asylum so is not relevant here. But an application under the scheme could well qualify as a human rights claim.

The meaning of this is explained in s. 113 as follows:

“human rights claim” means a claim made by a person to the Secretary of State at a place designated by the Secretary of State that to remove the person from or require him to leave the United Kingdom or to refuse him entry into the United Kingdom 3 would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (public authority not to act contrary to Convention)


Latest case law

The concept of a human rights claim has been explored by the courts recently.

On 5th February 2018 the Upper Tribunal decided Baihinga (r. 22; human rights appeal: requirements) [2018] UKUT 90 (IAC). The appellant (a citizen of Sierra Leone) applied for entry clearance as a returning resident with indefinite leave to remain. This was refused without a right of appeal as she had been absent from the UK for over two years.

However, it was held that as she had stated that she wished to re-enter the UK to join her family and finish her education and had provided a letter of support from her father, this was enough to constitute a human rights claim. This case has been explored by Free Movement here.

Then on 15th May 2018 the Court of Appeal decided Joshi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1108. The appellants, a married couple, were Indian nationals. The first had entry clearance as a student and the second was her student dependent. The first appellant’s leave to remain was due to expire but her college’s sponsor licence was revoked. She applied to extend her leave to remain to find a sponsor and cited her right to a private and family life.

The Court of Appeal held that this was a human rights claim. Looking at her application in substance rather than form, she had been asking for time to secure a new visa on the basis of her Article 8 rights in the knowledge that once that time expired she could be removed from the UK. Therefore, it was a human rights (though the Secretary of State had been entitled on the evidence to consider it “clearly unfounded”).


What about a Windrush refusal?

A Windrush application may well be a human rights claim too. Imagine if an applicant raised human rights considerations in their application form, stating that their removal would have a significant effect on their relationships with family members and life in the UK.

The Home Secretary might argue that a refusal does not constitute an immigration decision, perhaps drawing an analogy to an application for a no time limit biometric residence permit. That scheme concerns the process by which a person with indefinite leave to enter or indefinite leave to remain can apply for confirmation of their status and the guidance for that scheme (p. 31) states that there is no right of appeal because a decision is not an immigration decision.

But it need not follow that a Windrush refusal is similar.

The new s. 82 of the 2002 Act (in force since October 2014) does not circumscribe the concept of an immigration decision as the old s. 82 did.

The Windrush guidance is vague as what the effect of a refusal would be, but given that applicants will be applying to clarify whether they have the right to be in the UK, a refusal would seem to clarify that they do not. This looks like an immigration decision.

Also, it is worth noting that the guidance does not justify the lack of a right of appeal on the basis that Windrush decisions are not immigration decisions. It remains silent on the matter.

The Home Secretary might also argue that refusals are not refusals of human rights claims, as they are decisions concerned with factual questions of whether a person had citizenship or settled status in the UK without documentation.

However, a refusal is very likely to have an effect on the applicant’s rights under Article 8.

Furthermore, the guidance states that when considering applicants who wish to apply for indefinite leave to remain, the decision-maker must decide whether they meet the criteria of close and continuing ties to the UK. This is explained on p. 28 as follows:

When considering whether a person has close and continuing ties to the UK you will want to consider similar factors to returning residence – for example strength of ties, family ties, property and business ties and length of residence. However, given that the person is in the UK, you need not consider factors relating to their departure from the UK and their reason for wanting to return.

Therefore, in some applications the Secretary of State will be considering matters very similar to those considered in an ordinary Article 8 application for leave to remain. A refusal would suggest that the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the ties are strong enough.

Perhaps the Secretary of State would argue that a refusal under the Windrush scheme would not prevent the applicant from preparing a further application for leave to remain on human rights grounds.

But if – as seems likely – a refusal would clarify that an applicant has no lawful basis to remain in the UK, and was made despite consideration of the applicant’s personal circumstances and family ties to the UK, it looks a lot like a decision that the applicant’s removal would not be unlawful under the Human Rights Act. This fits the definition of a human rights refusal under s. 113 of the 2002 Act.

The matter will become a bit clearer once we can see what these refusal decisions look like. But for now, lawyers should keep a close watch. There will be many who succeed under the scheme. But some will not. Their rights to private and family life might well require that they receive the opportunity to appeal these refusals to a judge of the First-tier Tribunal.

Jonathan Metzer is a barrister at One Crown Office Row. He is the commissioning editor of the UK Human Rights Blog.





  1. Geoffrey says:

    Let it be that an impecunious party needs to appeal a refusal of re-entry or an Order for deportation, How is that party to access a Court? Who will act pro-bono?

  2. Jake Maverick says:

    um, if you don’t have papers you don’t have papers! therefore u can not apply for papers as you have no papers and you can not apply for papers or appeal for papers as you have no papers. you can’t have legal representation (or even a bank account, work, earn money topay for any of it) as you have no papers? therefore u can not appeal as you have no papers?

    I’m in same boat along with all the other homeless people (slightly worse actually)…life been on hold for over 12 1/2 years now as state/ g-men stole my papers/ my identity. i think it’s the money laundering regs act or one of the legalisation of terrorism i think….can some lawyer confirm? i know it’s illegal to speak to me as i have no papers… :-(

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation deficit DEFRA Democracy village Dennis Gill dentist's registration fees deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disabled claimants disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 justification just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: