The Law Lords determined today that denying asylum seekers benefits as well as the right to work violates human rights safeguards.

In its intervention into this case, Liberty argued that because the State actively bans asylum-seekers from working and thus bars their route to supporting themselves, the removal of minimal state support leading to destitution constitutes ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’ as prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Liberty also argued that this prohibition is absolute - ‘degrading treatment’ cannot be justified in pursuit of an ill-thought out policy.

Alex Gask, Legal Officer at Liberty, said:

"This decision prevents the Government forcing those fleeing murderous regimes who seek a safe haven in the UK from having to beg, steal and prostitute themselves or face starvation in the streets.

"Asylum seekers previously placed in a catch-22 situation in which they couldn’t work or receive benefits will now escape this affront to human dignity.

"The Law Lords warning that the UK’s obligations to prevent ill-treatment are absolute also has strong implications for the Government’s attempts to return individuals to torturous regimes.”

Press Office: 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

In the case of R (Limbuela, Tesema and Adam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (known as ‘Limbuela’) the House of Lords considered the Home Office’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the removal of subsistence support from three asylum seekers was unlawful as it breached their right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights). Today they upheld the Court of Appeal decision unanimously, 5 – 0.

Under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, those who do not apply for asylum at the earliest opportunity must not be provided with the limited support normally made available to asylum seekers. However, this support may not be removed if doing so would lead to a violation of the human rights. The Court of Appeal decision in May 2004 effectively held that any removal of benefits leading to destitution would be in breach of human rights and thus unlawful, undermining the entire policy of enforced destitution. Liberty and Justice jointly intervened in the House of Lords case to argue both that the Court of Appeal had correctly decided the case, and also to dispute the analysis given to Article 3 in the dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal. Ends//