The High Court has been told that the Home Office did not act in secrecy when it decided to house up to 540 asylum seekers at a former military training camp in East Sussex. The department's assertion, made during a two-day hearing of a legal challenge brought by Crowborough Shield, is being closely watched for its implications on transparency and accountability within government.
James Strachan KC, representing the Home Office, argued that engagement with key local bodies – including the police, NHS, and local councils – both before and after the decision was made demonstrates a commitment to open communication. He highlighted the establishment of a forum for residents and stakeholders to raise issues once the plans were confirmed.
A critical point in the case is the Home Secretary's use of emergency powers. Alex Goodman KC, for Crowborough Shield, questioned whether the situation truly met the criteria for an emergency that might cause homelessness, given the Home Office's statutory duty to house asylum seekers. The campaigners argue that the Home Office incorrectly determined the need for asylum seeker accommodation constituted an 'emergency' under planning regulations.
Mr Strachan maintained that the definition of an emergency encompasses events or situations that could lead to serious damage to human welfare, such as homelessness, injury, or property damage. He argued that the Home Secretary was fulfilling a statutory obligation to accommodate asylum seekers who would otherwise face destitution and homelessness, thereby justifying the use of emergency provisions.
The government's plans for the Crowborough site have been contentious since they were first announced last October, with local protests ensuing after confirmation in January. The Honourable Mr Justice Mould will now take time to consider the arguments before handing down his judgment at a later date.