What was claimed
In 2003 Keir Starmer won the case that gave illegal migrants access to UK benefits.
Our verdict
This is misleading. Mr Starmer was involved in a 2003 court case that specifically concerned whether asylum seekers who didn't claim asylum as soon as they entered the UK could get help from the government in the form of accommodation or financial support. Most asylum seekers could already receive accommodation and financial support before this case.
Posts shared widely on Facebook claim: “In 2003 Keir Starmer won the case that gave illegal migrants access to UK benefits”.
It’s likely that the posts refer to a case brought against the government in 2003 concerning financial support for asylum seekers, in which Mr Starmer was a barrister representing five of the claimants. This case only concerned access to accommodation and financial support for some asylum seekers—most asylum seekers could already receive support from the government.
People who are in the UK without the right to be here can’t access public funds, including mainstream benefits. Asylum seekers—who we sometimes see referred to as “illegal migrants”—also cannot access mainstream benefits but can apply to receive accommodation and financial support from the government under a separate asylum support system.
The 2003 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.
Join 72,953 people who trust us to check the facts
Sign up to get weekly updates on politics, immigration, health and more.
Subscribe to weekly email newsletters from Full Fact for updates on politics, immigration, health and more. Our fact checks are free to read but not to produce, so you will also get occasional emails about fundraising and other ways you can help. You can unsubscribe at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy.
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.
Financial support and accommodation was already available to eligible asylum seekers—these provisions were not established as a result of the 2003 court case, but under previous legislation.
We’ve written about this case in more detail in a previous fact check of similar claims which circulated on Facebook last year.
We regularly fact check misleading claims about “illegal immigrants’” access to benefits. Our FAQs page has more information about the support available to asylum seekers.
This article is part of our work fact checking potentially false pictures, videos and stories on Facebook. You can read more about this—and find out how to report Facebook content—here. For the purposes of that scheme, we’ve rated this claim as missing context because the 2003 case Mr Starmer was involved in specifically concerned whether asylum seekers who didn’t apply for asylum upon arriving in the UK could receive government support. Most asylum seekers could already receive support prior to this.
Full Fact fights for good, reliable information in the media, online, and in politics.
Bad information ruins lives. It promotes hate, damages people’s health, and hurts democracy. You deserve better.
Subscribe to weekly email newsletters from Full Fact for updates on politics, immigration, health and more. Our fact checks are free to read but not to produce, so you will also get occasional emails about fundraising and other ways you can help. You can unsubscribe at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy.