The Weekly Round-up: Suspension of funding to the UN agency assisting Palestinian refugees; changes to the Immigration Rules
5 February 2024
In the UK:
The government has confirmed the dates on which various significant changes to the Immigration Rules will come into effect:
- On 14 March, the Immigration Rules will increase the minimum income for Family visas from £18,600 to £29,000. This will come into force from 11 April. The threshold will be increased in stages to £34,500 and finally to £38,700 by early 2025.
- On 19 February, the Immigration Rules will be changed to remove the right for care workers and senior care workers to bring dependants (partners and children). This change will come into force on 11 March 2024.
- On 14 March, the Immigration Rules will be changed to increase the earnings thresholds for those arriving on the Skilled Worker route, with the minimum threshold raising from £26,200 to £38,700. This change will come into force on 4 April 2024.
- On 14 March, the Immigration Rules will be changed to remove the 20% going rate discount for occupations on the Shortage Occupation List, and temporarily add further occupations to the new Immigration Salary List, which will replace the current Shortage Occupation List.
The Home Affairs Select Committee has sent a letter regarding the living conditions aboard the Bibby Stockholm to Michael Tomlinson KC MP, the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration. The Bibby Stockholm is a barge used to accommodate asylum seekers awaiting decisions regarding their asylum claims.
The letter comes after the Committee members’ visit to the barge. It mentions, among other issues, that the inhabitants share cabins designed for one person with up to six people. The inhabitants reported limited access to GPs, mental health services, religious services for Muslims, and the local communities in Portland and the surrounding areas.
In international news:
The Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres has appealed to countries which have suspended funding the UN agency assisting Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) to reconsider their decisions. Countries including the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and others suspended funding after allegations emerged that 12 employees of the agency participated in the 07 October attack on Israeli civilians. The news agency Reuters carried a news report on allegations of involvement in 07/10 attack.
In the courts:
In Secretary of State for the Home Department and another v IAB and others [2024] EWCA Civ 66, Court of Appeal rejected the Home Secretary’s argument that he was entitled to redact the names of civil servants in grades below the Senior Civil Service, known as junior civil servants, save in exceptional circumstances. In practice those exceptional circumstances would be where the junior civil servant’s identity had bearing on whether to grant the judicial review. Junior civil servants make up 98% of employees of the civil service and do not usually make decisions as to policy.
The Court held that routine redaction of junior civil servants’ names would compromise the duty of candour because the meaning and significance of documents, such as long email chains, would be more difficult to understand. Replacing names with ciphers would be extremely laborious. The Court was not convinced that providing the names of junior civil servants could expose them to malicious messages or other harassment. It was held that this could be dealt with through government IT security systems, injunctions against harassment and prosecutions.
In R (Law Society of England and Wales) v Lord Chancellor [2024] EWHC 155 (Admin), the High Court had to determine whether the Lord Chancellor’s decision to implement lower increases than recommended in the Criminal Legal Aid Independent Review report (CLAIR report) was unlawful and irrational. The review recommended, among other measures, additional funding of at least £100 million per annum (an overall increase of 15%).
It was held that the Lord Chancellor’s decision to implement lower fee increases did not breach his duty under section 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), which requires the Lord Chancellor to secure that legal aid is made available. The Claimants failed to establish that the system of criminal legal aid was so inherently defective that it would produce unfairness in at least a significant and identifiable number of cases. It is not sufficient to prove that the defects and deficiencies in the system are such that there is a real risk of a breach of section 1 of LASPO. However, the Court did acknowledge that the evidence provided by the Law Society showed “the system is slowly coming apart at the seams”. Thus, the Law Society’s related arguments that the Lord Chancellor’s decision to introduce lower fees was irrational and that he failed to provide adequate reasons also failed.
However, the Law Society succeeded on the ground that the Lord Chancellor breached his Tameside duty of sufficient enquiry. The duty was breached because the Lord Chancellor failed to carry out economic modelling on the basis of the lower fee uplifts to determine whether the aims and objectives of the CLAIR report to ensure the sustainability of criminal legal aid would be furthered. This failure to carry out further modelling based on the lower uplifts was also held to be irrational.
