No, Keir Starmer did not take the government to court demanding benefits be extended to illegal immigrants

Context

As the 2024 U.K. general election approaches, some Facebook users have been circulating images (archived here, here, and here) claiming that, "In 2003, the Labour Government was taken to court by a left-wing lawyer who demanded that benefits should be extended to illegal immigrants. He won the case, and this laid the ground for today's scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal 'small boat' migrants that cost the taxpayer 8 million a day - and rising. The lawyer in question is SIR KEIR STARMER."

Immigration is a top issue for voters ahead of the elections, with 36 percent of people highlighting it in a recent YouGov poll, giving rise to many false or misleading claims online.

However, Keir Starmer did not take the government to court in 2003. Instead, he served as a barrister representing asylum seekers who challenged the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act in the High Court.

In fact

In 2003, six asylum seekers took legal action against the then-Labour government in the High Court. Keir Starmer – a barrister at the time, not a politician – and two other barristers represented five of the asylum seekers in the court case.

The asylum seekers challenged Section 55 of the 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, which stated that asylum seekers may not receive help if "the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom." 

The Act was challenged on the grounds that it left those who did not immediately claim asylum in poverty without the right to emergency support like shelter and food. In 2003, Starmer told the BBC that the law violated the asylum seekers' human rights and left them "staring in the face of hunger, illness, mental deterioration, and destitution." Neither Starmer nor the asylum seekers sought to extend state benefits to illegal immigrants in the court case.

The court's decision mandated that the government provide accommodation and financial aid to asylum seekers at risk of poverty, regardless of how long after they arrived in the U.K. they filed their claim.

This claim is currently being shared in the context of the upcoming U.K. general elections, in which Starmer is running for re-election as the Labour MP of London constituency Holborn and St. Pancras. He is also the leader of the Labour Party and will become Prime Minister if Labour wins the upcoming election. This is not the first time this claim has appeared online, however. Full Fact previously checked it in August 2023.

Logically Facts has contacted Starmer for comment, and we will update this check if we receive a reply.

The verdict

Keir Starmer was a barrister representing asylum seekers in a 2003 court case; he did not sue the government demanding benefits be extended to illegal immigrants. Therefore, we have marked the claim as misleading.