You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
A legal challenge against the government over its scheme to house rough sleepers during the pandemic has been unsuccessful, with the judge stating the debate “belongs in the arenas of public opinion and politics” rather than the courts.
In a judgement published this week, a High Court judge said there was an “elusiveness” and “ambiguity” in the government’s communication on the Everyone In initiative, but rejected the claim that ministers had acted unlawfully.
The judicial review, which was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in December, was brought forward by a former rough sleeper with no recourse to public funds who was refused accommodation from Camden Council in March last year.
It concerns the government’s Everyone In scheme, which began in March 2020 when the government wrote to local authorities telling them to find accommodation, such as hotels, for all rough sleepers in response to the pandemic.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the claimant in this case would not have been eligible for housing support from their local authority, however the claimant’s solicitor argued that the council should have accommodated him due to the Everyone In scheme.
At the time, Camden Council responded by saying the focus of Everyone In had changed and that it was no longer accommodating all rough sleepers.
This response triggered the judicial review case that was heard by the High Court last month, with the claimant’s lawyers arguing that the government had secretly ended its Everyone In scheme despite stating publicly that the scheme was ongoing.
They said the government failed to follow the legal duties that require ministers to publish policy changes and to consult with stakeholders over them.
In response, the government argued that Everyone In had changed in May 2020 to not include all rough sleepers and that this change was properly communicated.
In her witness statement, Catherine Bennion, the government’s deputy director for rough sleeping, said the phrase Everyone In became “branding” that was recognised by the sector.
However, she accepted “that at some points throughout the pandemic response, there was some inconsistency in the use [of] the expression ‘Everyone In’”. She also said the government used the phrase when it was “aware that not everybody was being ‘brought in’”.
In his judgement, Justice Michael Fordham said the claimant’s lawyers could “certainly point to fluidity and elusiveness and to examples of uncertainty” regarding the Everyone In scheme.
However, Justice Fordham did not accept that the government breached its legal duty as he said Everyone In was an “initiative” rather than a “policy”.
This means the legal duties around transparency and consultation did not apply, the judgement said.
Justice Fordham also said that there was an “ebb and flow” to the Everyone In scheme in the context of national measures to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Insofar as there are question marks about the clarity and straightforwardness of the government messaging relating to the Everyone In initiative, these do not engage the public law ‘duty of conformity’ and ‘duty of publication’.
“In those circumstances – and absent any unreasonableness or breach of any legitimate expectation – the resolution of those question marks belongs to the arena of public opinion and of political and democratic accountability,” the judgement said.
A Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spokesperson said: “The government has taken decisive action to support people off the streets and protect the most vulnerable from COVID-19.
“We are pleased the court dismissed this case so we can continue to focus on our work to end rough sleeping for good.”
Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters