Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:27:51.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare, Asylum and the Politics of Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

LYDIA MORRIS
LYDIA MORRIS*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester email: ldmorris@essex.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines 14 judgments over a ten-year period of challenge to the removal of welfare support from ‘late claimers’ for asylum. The case history spans a period of transition in Britain from the general principles of the Common Law to the implementation of the Human Rights Act (HRA) (Home Office, 1998), but indeterminacy is to the fore in such a developing area of law, allowing considerable scope for judicial interpretation. The focus of this article is therefore the cumulative dynamic of the judgments, their strategic delivery and their policy impact. The analysis demonstrates the force of general principles in yielding a solution, while also providing evidence of judgment as political dialogue over competing visions of society.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 119 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Billings, B. and Edwards, R. A. (2004), ‘Safeguarding asylum seekers dignity’, Journal of Social Security Law, 11: 83–111.Google Scholar
Billings, B. and Edwards, R. A. (2006), ‘A case of mountainish inhumanity’, Journal of Social Security Law, 13: 169–80.Google Scholar
Bloch, A. and Schuster, L. (2002), ‘Asylum and welfare: contemporary debates’, Critical Social Policy, 22: 3, 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, A. (2003), ‘Judicial independence under attack’, Public Law, 397–407.Google Scholar
Cassese, A. (1991), ‘Can the notion of inhuman and degrading treatment be applied to socio-economic conditions?’, European Journal of International Law, 141–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S., Humphries, B. and Mynott, E. (2002), From Immigration Controls to Welfare Controls, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1948), National Assistance Act, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Social Security (1995), ‘Explanatory memorandum to the Social Security Advisory Committee’, DSS, London.Google Scholar
Department of Social Security (1996), ‘Social security (persons from abroad) (miscellaneous amendments) 1996’, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Düvell, F. and Jordan, B. (2003), ‘Immigration control and the management of economic migration in the UK’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29: 3, 299–336.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1977), Taking Rights Seriously, London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Feria, M. (1996), ‘Commentaries on the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) (Miscellaneous Amendments), Regulations 1996’, Immigration and Nationality Law and Practice, 10: 91–101.Google Scholar
Fredman, S. (2000), Judging democracy: the role of the judiciary under the HRA, Current Legal Problems, 53: 99–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J. (1996), ‘Asylum and Immigration Act 1996’, Immigration and Nationality Law and Practice, 10: 86–90.Google Scholar
Guardian (2008), Comment and Features, ‘Land of no return’, 13 June, p. 4.Google Scholar
Guardian Unlimited (2003), ‘Blunket hits out at power of courts’, 21 February.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge: Polity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Home Office (1993), Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Home Office (1996), Asylum and Immigration Act, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Home Office (1998), Human Rights Act, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Home Office (1998), Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill, CM 3782, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Home Office (1999), Immigration and Asylum Act, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Home Office (2002), Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Independent (2003), ‘Blunket forced to soften law on asylum’, 19 March.Google Scholar
Joint Committee on Human Rights (2002), Nationality Immigration and Asylum Bill: Further Report, Twenty-third Report of Session 2001–02, HL 176, HC 1255.Google Scholar
Juss, S. (1997), Discretion and Deviation in the Administration of Immigration Control, London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
Legomsky, S. H. (1987), Immigration and the Judiciary, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Morris, L. D. (2002), Managing Migration, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morris, L. D. (2007), ‘New Labour's community of rights’, Journal of Social Policy, 36: 39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, L. D. (2009a), ‘An emergent cosmopolitan paradigm? – asylum, welfare and human rights’, British Journal of Sociology, 60: 2, 215–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, L. D. (2009b), ‘Welfare asylum and civil society: a case study on civil repair’, Citizenship Studies, 13: 4, 365–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, L. D. (2009c), ‘Civic stratification and the cosmopolitan ideal: the case of welfare and asylum’, European Societies, 11: 625–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Refugee Council (2004), Hungry and Homeless, London: Refugee Council.Google Scholar
Sales, R. (2002), ‘The deserving and the undeserving? Refugees, asylum seekers and welfare in Britain’, Critical Social Policy, 22: 3, 456–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scoular, J. (1997), ‘Case analysis’, Journal of Social Security Law, 4: 86–90.Google Scholar
Stevens, D. (2004), UK Asylum Law and Policy, London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Stevens, R. (2002), The English Judges, Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2003), ‘Asylum seeker support’, Journal of Social Security Law, 10: 163–73.Google Scholar
Unger, R. M. (1983), The Critical Legal Studies Movement, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, F. (2004), ‘Asylum – from deterrence to destitution’, Race and Class, 45: 77–85.Google Scholar
Woodhouse, D. (1998), ‘The judiciary in the 1990s’, Policy and Politics, 26: 458–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, H. (1998), ‘Judicial review – the tensions between the executive and the judiciary’, Law Quarterly Review, 114: 579–93.Google Scholar

Cases

R v Eastbourne (1803) 4 East 103, 102 ER 769.Google Scholar
R v Secretary of State for Social Security (SSSS) ex parte JCWI, QBD.Google Scholar
R v SSSS ex parte JCWI [1996] 4 All ER 385.Google Scholar
R v Westminster Council ex parte M [1997] 1 CCLR 69.Google Scholar
R v Westminster Council ex parte M [1997] 1 CCLR 85, CA.Google Scholar
O'Rourke v UK application 39022/97 2001 ECtHR.Google Scholar
Pretty v UK [2002] 2 FCR 97 ECtHR.Google Scholar
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department on application of Q [2003] EWHC 195 (Admin).Google Scholar
R v SSHD on application of Q [2003] EWCA Civ 364.Google Scholar
R v SSHD on application of S, D and T [2003] EWHC 1941 (Admin).Google Scholar
R v SSHD on application of T [2003] EWCA Civ 1285.Google Scholar
Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2003] 1 ALL ER 731.Google Scholar
Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4.Google Scholar
R v SSHD on application of Zardasht [2004] EWHC 91 (Admin).Google Scholar
R v SSHD on application of Limbuela [2004] EWHC 219 (Admin).Google Scholar
R v SSHD on application of Tesema [2004] EWHC 295 (Admin).Google Scholar
R v SSHD on application of Adam [2004] EWHC 354 (Admin).Google Scholar
R v SSHD on application of Adam, Tesema and Limbuela [2004] EWCA Civ 540.Google Scholar
R v SSHD ex parte Adam, Limbuela and Tesema [2005] UKHL 66.Google Scholar