Rough sleepers from EU can’t be thrown out, declares judge
DEPORTING EU citizens who sleep rough on Britain’s streets is illegal – even if they are criminals or drug addicts, a judge has ruled.
In a major blow to Home Secretary Amber Rudd, the High Court said the policy was discriminatory and broke controversial freedom of movement rules.
Two Polish men and a Latvian successfully challenged the rules after they were threatened with removal from Britain when they were found sleeping rough by police and immigration officers.
The judgment means hundreds of people who arrive in Britain from the EU and sleep in doorways or parks will be allowed to stay irrespective of whether they are thieves, beggars or have drug or alcohol problems.
The Home Office said it was ‘disappointed’ but will not appeal. Critics condemned the judgment and said it was more evidence of the urgency with which Britain needed to quit the EU to seize back control of its borders.
Tory MP Philip Davies, a leading Brexiteer, described the ruling as bizarre. ‘We were always told by EU fanatics that we had free movement of labour, not free movement of down and outs,’ he said. ‘To be unable to deport someone who is here to sleep in a shop doorway will be completely unacceptable to members of the public.’
The Home Office began targeting rough sleepers – mainly from Eastern Europe – in 2016, accusing them of ‘misusing’ their free movement rights.
But it was challenged by the Public Interest Law Unit (PILU) at Lambeth Law Centre, which acts for those who claim to have been treated unlawfully by public bodies. It sought a judicial review on behalf of the three men.
The Home Office told the court that rough sleeping had increased by 55 per cent across the UK and 91 per cent in London between 2010 and 2015, with a large rise in the proportion of EU homeless.
It said European citizens were arriving ‘intent on rough sleeping’ despite free movement rules saying people could move around the EU to work, seek jobs, study, or live if they were self-sufficient as long as they did not become an ‘unreasonable burden’ on the state.
A Home Office summary handed to the court said: ‘Rough sleepers could damage the reputation of central London areas as a tourist destination, they had an adverse impact on the amenities of residents and other visitors, and public authorities incurred costs in managing the problems which they caused.’
Guidance issued to enforcement teams said that they should not deport rough sleepers who had ‘inadvertently fallen on hard times through no fault of their own’.
But in her ruling on the cases of the three men – one found sleeping in a toilet and another in a tent in the middle of a roundabout – Mrs Justice Lang ruled that being homeless was not itself a ground for deporting the men.
The High Court said the Government must abandon the policy, which equated rough sleeping as
‘This ruling is unacceptable’
‘an abuse’ of the right of freedom of movement.
Law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, which worked on the case brought by the PILU, said the rounding up of EU rough sleepers had created a ‘climate of fear’ and added: ‘The Home Office’s desire to create a “hostile environment” for foreign nationals has been dealt a significant blow by this ruling.’
A Home Office spokesman said it would ‘consider carefully what steps are necessary to ensure we reflect the judgment in future enforcement’. It added that most of those removed under the measure had not exercised their rights to residency in the UK when required and were therefore ‘not lawfully in the country’.