The Weekly Round Up: Asylum system failures, non-consensual deepfakes, Windsor Framework and deprivation of liberty
8 June 2026
In the news
On Friday, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) published a report which found that government departments “still do not have a grip” on how to manage the asylum system [1], and that the Home Office has yet to demonstrate that it has learned from previous attempts to reform the asylum system.
The publication of the report follows the Government announcement in November 2025 of an “entirely new asylum model”, alongside plans to reduce costs by £1 billion a year by 2028-29 [4].
An analysis of the asylum system report identified a pattern of shifting, rather than reducing, backlogs. The PAC highlighted that increases in the speed of processing asylum claims led to a decline of decision quality, which contributed to backlogs in the appeals system. There was an increase from 27,000 people waiting for an appeal decision in April 2024 to currently “around 70,000” — an increase of over 150% [11].
The PAC also raised concerns about the Home Office approach to the Northeye site, which was deemed unsuitable for asylum accommodation but subsequently transferred to Homes for England to increase the UK’s housing stock [13]. PAC chair, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, asked: “if it is not fit for asylum seekers, why is it fit for our homeless population?”.
In other news
- On Wednesday, Labour MP Jess Asato launched a test case against xAI concerning the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes by its AI platform, Grok. Filed in the High Court, the claim alleges breaches of data protection law and misuse of her private information. The claim seeks a declaration of illegality, an order requiring xAI to stop all further illegality and damages.
- The House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee launched an inquiry on Tuesday into Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which provides that there is no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The inquiry follows the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dillon v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2026] UKSC 15, handed down last month, which held that the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not breach Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.
In the courts
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court overruled the decision in Surrey County Council v P; Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 (“Cheshire West“) on what counts as “deprivation of liberty” under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as it applies to individuals with impaired mental capacity and living in health or social care settings [207].
The Supreme Court replaced the “acid test” for determining a deprivation of liberty established in Cheshire West — whether an individual is subject to “continuous supervision and control” and is “not free to leave” [11] — with a multifactorial approach, taking account of factors including the “relative normality” of the placement, the purpose of the confinement and the individual’s compliance [53].
The Supreme Court unanimously held that an adult who does not have mental capacity to make their own decision about their residence and care arrangements can “validly consent” to their confinement and no deprivation of liberty arises [53] — a decision which departs from “the conventional understanding” of Cheshire West [12].
Mencap, Mind and the National Autistic Society submitted to the Court that narrowing the scope of Article 5 ECHR would “remove vital safeguards” from disabled people [29], including access to independent representation and access to a court to challenge the lawfulness of detention [31].
The case stemmed from a reference brought by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland regarding whether a revised code of practice would be incompatible with Article 5 ECHR. The draft revised code provides that even where a person lacks mental capacity to make decisions about their residence and care arrangements, they can give valid consent “through the expression of current wishes and feelings that go beyond mere acquiescence to the confinement” [15], including evidence of a “positive attitude to the care arrangements” [55].
The Supreme Court held that the Minister would not be acting incompatibly with Article 5 ECHR in issuing the revised code [53].
In Strasbourg
José Mourinho has filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against Türkiye regarding the disciplinary sanctions that were handed down by the country’s football federation while he was in charge of Fenerbahce.
The complaint, lodged in March 2025 while he was still coach of Fenerbahce and published earlier this week, claimed Mourinho’s right to freedom of expression was infringed when in November 2024 when he was given a one-match ban and fined 900,000 Turkish lira ($26,200) by the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) for questioning the impartiality of referees and other match officials.
On the UKHRB
Rosalind English considers the judgment in Cork and another v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 as a cautionary case on the use of AI in legal practice, highlighting lawyers’ duty to verify AI-generated information.
