R (W, A Child By His Litigation Friend J) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

Alex Goodman (instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn) for the Claimant Steven Kovats QC, Colin Thomann and Tom Tabori (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Defendant Amanda Weston QC, Bijan Hoshi and Ollie Persey (instructed by the Public Law Project) for the Intervener Hearing dates: 6 and 7 May 2020 ____________________

(a) Ground 1 was that the imposition of the NRPF condition in J's case was irrational and breached s. 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 1999, which, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD [2011] 2 AC 166 , requires the best interests of the child to be taken into account as a primary consideration.

(c) Ground 3 is that the NRPF regime discriminates directly or indirectly against those of non-British national origin or ethnicity contrary to Article 14 read with Article 8 ECHR and contrary to s. 29 of the 2010 Act.

(d) Ground 4 is that the NRPF regime is "contrary to the requirements of the rule of law and to Articles 8 and 14 in that they are collectively overbroad and/or insufficiently precise" in that the discretion afforded to decision-makers is not sufficiently constrained and decision-making is therefore arbitrary.

(e) Ground 5 is that the NRPF regime and conditions imposed under it are unlawful because they "deprive British citizens of the benefit of entitlements under statutory welfare measures which are provided by Parliament to prevent children falling into homelessness and extreme poverty and thereby exceed the permissible scope of an Immigration Rule and policy statement". Mr Kovats characterised this as an argument that the regime is repugnant to statute.