Asylum seekers received support prior to court case involving Keir Starmer

Facebook posts claiming Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was the lawyer in a court case that “laid the ground” for “illegal migrants” to be housed in hotels and receive benefits are misleading and could use some more context.

The widely shared posts feature an old photo of the PM wearing robes with overlaid text that says: “In 1993 the labour party were taken to court by a lefty lawyer who demanded illigal immigrants get benefits. He won the case and this laid the ground for todays scandal of hotels and benefits for illigal migrants. THE LEFTY LAWYER WAS NONE OTHER THAN KEIR STARMER [sic]”.

The image has been shared with captions including: “This person is the problem. He doesn't care about our rights just those of the Gimigrants [sic]” and “He kept this quiet didn’t he?!!”.

The post appears to be referring to a case brought against the government in 2003—not 1993—in which Mr Starmer represented five asylum seekers. This case only concerned access to accommodation and financial support for some asylum seekers. Most asylum seekers could already receive support from the government.

We’ve previously written about similarly misleading posts circulating online with almost identical wording, but those instead correctly refer to the case being in 2003 rather than 1993.

It’s worth noting that asylum seekers don’t have access to mainstream benefits like Universal Credit (though they may be able to if their asylum claim is approved and they’re given refugee status). We’ve written about the support asylum seekers are eligible for many times before.

2003 case against the government

Mr Starmer was a barrister representing five out of a group of six asylum seekers who took the then-Labour government to court.

The case challenged section 55 of the government’s Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which enabled the Home Office to refuse financial support or accommodation to asylum seekers if they had not applied for asylum “as soon as reasonably practicable” after arriving in the UK.

On behalf of his clients, Mr Starmer argued that this refusal of support breached the European Convention on Human Rights. The court ruled in favour of the claimants, meaning that the government had a duty to provide accommodation and financial assistance to asylum seekers at risk of destitution, regardless of how long after their arrival in the UK their claim was made.

As a barrister for this case, Mr Starmer was instructed by the solicitors firms Ben Hoare Bell and Clore & Co, as well as The Refugee Legal Centre. Other solicitors also took part in the case, representing both the same claimants alongside Mr Starmer, as well as other asylum seekers.

Mr Starmer was first elected as a Labour MP more than a decade after the case in 2015.

Most asylum seekers could receive support prior to this case

This case concerned the provision of accommodation and financial support specifically for asylum seekers who did not apply for asylum immediately upon arrival in the UK. Financial support and accommodation was already available to eligible asylum seekers—these provisions were not established as a result of the 2003 court case.

Asylum seekers who are destitute, or at risk of becoming destitute, are legally entitled to support with accommodation and living costs under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Before the Immigration and Asylum Act came into force, councils also had a duty to offer assistance to asylum seekers under the National Assistance Act 1948, in the form of accommodation and certain benefits at a reduced rate.

You can find more of our fact checks relating to immigration on our website. Inaccurate claims made on social media can spread fast and far, and are often difficult to contain and correct.