Resident group to file new legal claim over military camp housing asylum seekers

A residents’ group has said it plans to launch a new High Court legal challenge against the Home Office over plans to use a military training camp as accommodation for asylum seekers, after an initial legal bid was thrown out.

Crowborough Shield, a community interest company, began legal action against the Government last year after it announced it was considering housing up to 540 men at the site in East Sussex.

The group filed its claim in December last year after the Government’s announcement in October.

On Friday, Mr Justice Mould dismissed the claim as “premature”, as it was filed before the Government decided to go ahead with plans to use the site in January.

But he also said that the department’s January decision was “at least in principle” open to a legal challenge.

Speaking on behalf of the group following the ruling, Matthew Shankland said that it intends to issue a new claim against the Home Office over the January decision by Wednesday, the deadline for the challenge being filed.

He said: “We believe that issuing this claim when we did was the only available course for our community.”

He continued: “Our current inclination is to recommence proceedings next week.”

Mr Shankland told reporters that the group had already spent more than £100,000 on legal fees, and that a new claim could see it pay “possibly the same again”.

Kim Bailey, director and chairwoman of the group, told reporters outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London that a second claim would have a “cost impact”.

She said: “That is something I will take forward with the community, because essentially it is their decision whether they want to take this further forward.

“But we will be issuing again, before Wednesday.”

The Government’s announcement last October came as it sought to end the use of hotels.

The Home Office approved the plan in January this year, with 27 men housed at the camp last month despite a series of protests in the town and opposition from Wealden District Council over the move.

The Crowborough site, which has been given to the Home Office by the Ministry of Defence for 12 months, was previously used to accommodate Afghan families evacuated during the withdrawal from Kabul in 2021 while they were resettled elsewhere.

At a hearing on Wednesday, barristers for the group said the claim “challenged the process for the authorisation” of the “unlawful” decision, and asked a judge to give the green light for it to proceed to a full hearing.

Alex Goodman KC, for the group, said in written submissions: “The claim, in an orthodox way, sought to challenge a process while it was in train with a view to preventing a public authority from acting unlawfully.”

The Home Office defended the challenge, with its lawyers telling the hearing in London that the bid was “premature” and asking the judge to find it was “totally without merit”.

James Strachan KC, for the department, said in written submissions: “The simple and clear position is that this claim is misconceived in challenging a decision which had not been taken.”

In his ruling, Mr Justice Mould said that the challenge “is indeed premature” and that the group had “jumped the gun”, as at the time the initial claim was launched, there was “no clearly determined policy to use the camp” as accommodation for asylum seekers.

He continued that there “would be no real prejudice” to the group or anyone else to bring a legal challenge “against the actual decision made”.

Following the ruling, Mr Shankland said that it was “plain as a matter of practical reality” that the Home Office had decided to use the site before January, and urged Wealden District Council to “join with us” in the new claim.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We welcome the court’s decision to refuse permission for this legal challenge.

“The Government is removing the incentives drawing illegal migrants to Britain. That is why we will close every single asylum hotel, moving asylum seekers into basic accommodation like Crowborough.”

A Wealden District Council spokesperson said the authority was “disappointed” with the court’s ruling and would take “urgent legal advice”.

They said: “The council strongly opposed the use of the site for this purpose and argued that the Government was wrong to grant themselves planning permission, has failed to be transparent in its decision-making and reached a decision without proper engagement and consideration of local community and environmental impacts.

“The council participated in the hearing as an interested party, providing relevant supporting evidence and ensuring that the court was fully informed of local impacts and procedural history.”