abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

8 Apr 2020

Author:
UK Human Rights Blog

Commentary: Serco lock-change evictions case shows effectiveness of human rights legal challenges in protection of vulnerable individuals

“Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Serco Lock Change Evictions Case- But What Effect Has the Human Rights Challenge Already Had?”, 08 April 2020

… In July 2018, Serco began to implement the “move on protocol” – a new policy of changing locks and evicting asylum seekers without a court order if they were no longer eligible for asylum support…

In response to this, the Stop Lock Change Evictions Coalition (“the Coalition”) was formed by various organisations, charities and lawyers who all united for one common purpose – to protect asylum seekers’ human rights, particularly in relation to housing.

The primary means of doing this has been in the courts. Indeed, just one month after the lock change eviction policy was announced the Govan Law Centre had already initiated legal proceedings against Serco and the Home Secretary in the Court of Session. The main argument in the case – Ali (Iraq) v Serco Ltd [2019] CSIH 54 – was that it was unlawful for Serco to evict asylum seekers without first obtaining a court order in terms of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984. This was because, among other things, it breached their Article 3 and Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). That argument, however, was unsuccessful in both the Outer House and the Inner House on appeal (see the Blog’s coverage of the case here).

Another important aspect of the case was the question as to whether Serco should be properly classified as a public authority under section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Outer House answered this question in the affirmative, but the Inner House – whilst reaching the same end-result as the Outer House – answered it in the negative. This question is an important one as it goes to the heart of recent concerns over the lack of oversight and accountability of private companies, such as Serco, that carry out services which are public in nature (see the Blog’s coverage of this aspect of the judgment here).

After the Inner House found against the Govan Law Centre, they applied for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court (“UKSC”). In light of this, the Sheriff Principal discharged hearings in four test cases in March. These were subsequently deferred to a new court date.

Yesterday, however, the UKSC announced that it was refusing permission to appeal in Ali (Iraq) v Serco Ltd. This is somewhat disappointing as the Inner House’s judgment has wide implications for the protection of human rights in public services, particularly when they are carried out by private entities. Not only that, but there also remains a lack of clarity in this area of law which would have benefitted from being considered and clarified by the UKSC.

Despite the negative outcome of the appeal, the Coalition’s legal challenge has nevertheless had a significant impact on the protection of asylum seekers’ rights. Evidence of this can be found in a new report – A Site of Resistance – An Evaluation of the Stop Lock Change Evictions Coalition (“the Report”) – published in February and commissioned by the Scottish Refugee Council, Just Right Scotland, and Shelter Scotland. Such evidence includes the positive impact of the Coalition’s legal, public policy and operational response as well as their campaigns and media strategy. This illustrates how, more broadly, a coherent and collaborative human rights response can be effective in protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals.

However, before delving into to the substantive content contained in the Report, it is important to first consider the legal framework underpinning the lock change eviction policy.

Timeline

Privacy information

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies. You can set your privacy choices below. Changes will take effect immediately.

For more information on our use of web storage, please refer to our Data Usage and Cookies Policy

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

Analytics cookie

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

Your privacy choices for this site

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies to enhance your experience beyond necessary core functionality.