Asylum seekers wrongly housed at ‘prison-like’ former RAF base, High Court told
Barristers for four former residents of RAF Wethersfield told the court that facilities at the site were ‘seriously inadequate’.
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Vulnerable asylum seekers unsuitably housed at a “prison-like” former RAF base had to queue for food and experienced scabies outbreaks, the High Court has been told.
Four former residents of RAF Wethersfield are taking legal action against the Home Office, claiming it acted unlawfully by housing them at the site when it was “not suitable” due to characteristics including being victims of torture and human trafficking or being disabled.
Barristers for the men, who all stayed at the former airbase near Braintree, Essex, between July 2023 and February 2024, claim the accommodation was “seriously inadequate” and there was a “structural and systemic failure” to identify vulnerabilities which would exclude people from being housed there.
The Home Office is opposing the challenge, claiming its allocation system was “not incapable of being operated lawfully”.
Our case is not that Wethersfield is necessarily unsuitable for all, but that it is unsuitable for those who are vulnerable
It has admitted that housing one of the men at the site was unlawful but said this was an “individual error”, and that the base “reasonably appeared adequate” for the other three.
At a hearing on Tuesday, Angus McCullough KC, for three of the men, said: “Our case is not that Wethersfield is necessarily unsuitable for all, but that it is unsuitable for those who are vulnerable.”
In written submissions, the barrister said the Home Office has already acknowledged that men over the age of 65, women, children and those with some vulnerabilities should not be housed at Wethersfield.
But he told the court in London that the “system adopted by the Secretary of State is ineffective in detecting those that are vulnerable prior to and following allocation”.
The then-Conservative government announced plans to house migrants at Wethersfield, as well as RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire, in March last year.
Migrants began to be housed at Wethersfield last July, with capacity currently capped at 580 despite initial plans to accommodate 1,700 people.
Mr McCullough told the court the four men described the base, which is “surrounded by barbed wire and perimeter fencing”, as “prison-like”, with sounds of gunfire from a nearby shooting range triggering “traumatic memories” for residents who are victims of torture or violence.
He continued that the fixed meal times meant there were “queues to receive food and fighting between asylum seekers as a result”, that rooms were “bare” with no locks on the doors and that while laundry was done centrally, there were “recurring episodes of scabies”.
Lawyers for the Home Office told the court in February that it had received more than 200 threats of legal action over decisions to house people at the site.
Lisa Giovannetti KC, representing the department on Tuesday, said in written arguments that potential residents were subject to interviews where vulnerabilities could be disclosed as part of a “sifting” process before allocation, induction on arrival and further “ongoing monitoring of suitability”.
The system is not ‘inherently unlawful’ ie. one which is incapable of being operated lawfully across the range of cases in a material and identifiable number of cases.
She continued that while the Home Office “expressly recognises” that individuals may not immediately disclose vulnerabilities, the system was “capable of being operated lawfully”.
She said: “The Secretary of State’s case is not that the system always operates correctly, and the need for improvement in its operation is acknowledged in the Secretary of State’s evidence.
“However, the system is not ‘inherently unlawful’ ie. one which is incapable of being operated lawfully across the range of cases in a material and identifiable number of cases.”
Ms Giovannetti continued that the criticisms of accommodation at Wethersfield did not make the site “generally inadequate” and that there were “ongoing improvements” to address concerns.
The court was told that the Home Office “does not accept that Wethersfield is ‘prison-like’”, that steps had been taken to address queuing at meal times and “tensions that have arisen on occasion” at meal times and that the quality of healthcare was the responsibility of the NHS.
The hearing before Mr Justice Mould is due to conclude on Friday, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.