Four asylum seekers are taking the Home Office to court over claims they were caged in a ‘prison-like’ conditions at an ex-RAF base plagued by scabies and where squabbling migrants would fight one another in food queues.
The ex-residents of MDP Wethersfield near Braintree, in Essex, have lashed out and claimed the Home Office acted unlawfully by housing them at the site – which has a number of boarded up buildings on it.
The migrants argued the ex-military block was ‘not suitable’ for them because of their circumstance, with some claiming to have been victims of torture, human trafficking or disabled.
Barristers representing the four men, who all stayed at the former airbase between July 2023 and February 2024, claimed the block was ‘seriously inadequate’ and that gunfire from a nearby shooting range had triggered ‘traumatic’ memories for some.
Lawyers told London’s High Court that there was a ‘structural and systemic failure’ to identify vulnerabilities which would exclude people from being housed there.
Four asylum seekers are taking the Home Office to court over claims they were caged in a ‘prison-like’ conditions at an ex-RAF base near Braintree, Essex (pictured)
The asylum seekers claim the facilities at MDP Wethersfield were ‘not suitable’ and that the site was plagued by scabies. Pictures is a file image of migrants crossing the Channel from France earlier this month
The four ex-residents stayed at the former RAF facility between July 2023 and February 2024. Pictured is a file image of migrants arriving into Dover on July 8, 2024
But the Home Office has opposed the challenge, and said there were ‘ongoing improvements’ to address concerns.
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.
Angus McCullough KC, representing 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.
The ex-residents of MDP Wethersfield (pictured) near Braintree, in Essex, have lashed out and claimed the Home Office acted unlawfully by housing them at the site
Pictured are boarded up buildings at the camp where migrants have been housed by the government
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 also claimed 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’.
Migrants began to be housed at Wethersfield (pictured) last July, with capacity currently capped at 580 despite initial plans to accommodate 1,700 people
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 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.
