The Supreme Court’s sitting in Manchester marks a pivotal moment as they hear an appeal from a Palestinian refugee excluded from the UK refugee scheme.
- The appeal challenges the UK’s Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, which initially aided only Syrian nationals but later included neighbouring refugees, yet excluded Palestinians.
- Palestinians registered with UNRWA are barred from the scheme due to lack of UNHCR registration, limiting their resettlement opportunities.
- The legal challenge argues this exclusion breaches the Equality Act 2010, highlighting the need for public authorities to consider equality.
- The Supreme Court’s decision could redefine the scope of public sector equality and impact future refugee resettlement policies.
In a significant legal proceeding, the Supreme Court’s first Manchester sitting addressed an appeal by a Palestinian refugee. This appeal is noteworthy as it contests the exclusion from the UK government’s Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), initially designed in 2014 to assist Syrian nationals fleeing conflict.
This scheme was expanded to accept other refugees from neighbouring countries, regardless of their nationality. However, Palestinians registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) remain excluded, as the scheme solely recognises referrals from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This exclusion poses a critical barrier as it denies Palestinians, also victims of the Syrian conflict, the opportunity for resettlement in the UK.
Represented by the Manchester-based law firm Leigh Day, the appellant argues that the VPRS discriminates unlawfully against Palestinian refugees. The argument is rooted in an alleged breach of section 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010, which condemns discrimination in service access.
Further complicating this legal landscape is section 149(1) of the Equality Act, which mandates public authorities to pay due attention to equality issues. The Palestinian appellant’s representatives argue that the Home Secretary neglected this duty when establishing the VPRS. However, prior rulings indicated this section does not extend beyond UK borders. The current deliberation by the Supreme Court thus seeks to ascertain its territorial scope.
The appellant’s situation is profoundly distressing. A 64-year-old woman from Lebanon, suffering from significant health issues, finds herself isolated in a refugee camp. The plight is exacerbated by the loss and presumed death of her immediate family members in their pursuit of safety. Her legal counsel, Erin Alcock, emphasised the broader implications, stating, “The court is being asked to decide an important point of principle about when public authorities are required to have regard to equality issues.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling will be pivotal, potentially altering future policies on refugee resettlement and equality obligations.
