Bridging the Justice Gap: Sue Willman's Fight for Legal Equity and Social Justice

Imagine a world where access to justice isn’t a privilege, but a fundamental right. That's the vision we explore with our guest, Sue Willman, a Senior Consultant Solicitor of Deighton Pierce Glynn (DPG). We delve into the struggle of marginalised communities to secure legal representation and the fight of 'lefty lawyers' to bridge this justice gap. Sue shares her insights on the judicial review process and explains how her firm is championing social justice through their work. 

Let's look at this from another angle. In a world where the government uses its emergency powers to bypass the normal planning process, what happens to the people who bear the brunt of these decisions? We scrutinise the legality of the government's use of Class Q powers, particularly in relation to housing asylum seekers at Wethersfield Air Base. We question whether impact assessments were properly executed and ponder on the long-term effects on local communities. 

Finally, we traverse the complex terrain of the enforcement notice in the Scampton case and if the same should be considered at Wethersfield. Sue enlightens us on the importance of community collaboration to find solutions. We discuss the costs and challenges associated with legal challenges and also housing an influx of asylum seekers within local communities. As we do so, we also grapple with the wider issue of the UK's housing crisis, a problem that stretches far beyond accommodating those seeking asylum. This episode will challenge your perceptions and expand your understanding of law, social justice, and the power of community collaboration.

Chapters

• 0:00 Lefty Lawyers and Access to Justice
• 6:53 Legal Challenge to Emergency Powers
• 15:22 Legal Strategy in Council Case
• 29:03 Immigration and Asylum Concerns and Costs

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Field Association on Air. We are a group of residents who are passionate about tackling all aspects of local and national government decisions that affect local communities. In each episode, various members of the Field Association will be exploring a range of subject matters, discussing all the angles of each issue and interviewing those who can add an expert or helpful point of view. So grab yourself a tea or coffee and listening as we look to navigate through these current challenges. Right well, welcome to today's podcast. I'm pleased to say that we've got Sue Willman on from Dayton Pierce Glen, also known as DPG. So thank you, Sue, for coming on.

Speaker 1: 0:46

And, as you know, the podcast is really to get out to local community and local people so they're informed as to what's going on. And lots of people have heard snippets about crowd justice funding and about DPG and about the legal case, and of course, it's even on the news and local media. But I thought what we'd do is really go back to basics and just so anyone listening to this of which, so I have to tell you, there'll be millions listening to this as just they know, if you don't mind, who you are, who DPG are. And a bit about DPG just to start with, to give us a framework.

Speaker 2: 1:25

Thanks for having me, tony. My name is Sue Willman. I was brought up in a village in Devon not that dissimilar from Weathersfield, except that's a bit closer to the sea and a bit hiliar and I decided to become a lawyer because I was interested in changing things so that people had some access to justice and things were a bit fairer for them. And I ended up in 2003 working for a law firm called Dyson Pierce Glen DPG and when we started off we were just a few of us and we mostly worked with housing cases, so people who were homeless or had water coming through the roof, or social services cases. You know they were trying to close down. Your mum's care home or your disabled sister couldn't get into social services care, so we'd be challenging the government local government on those kinds of cases.

Speaker 2: 2:27

And later on we joined up with another firm which was called Dyson Goodaller and they may be mainly worked on cases involving police and prisons. So, for example, they represented Dwayne Brooks. He was the young man who was with Stephen Lawrence when he was murdered. And we've gradually got a bit bigger and now we've got offices in London and Bristol. We mostly do legal aid work, working with people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get access to a lawyer.

Speaker 1: 2:57

That's really interesting. So what springs to mind from that is obviously the term that we hear all the time on the TV and stuff, which is lefty lawyers. So it sounds like you deal a lot with people that need help with representation in a whole field of arenas. So, dpg, are you a lefty lawyer? Is that a bad thing? If you are, of course. If you're not, that's right. But are you a lefty lawyer, and why do we need lefty lawyers as such? What are they?

Speaker 2: 3:26

That's a cheeky question, tony, because of course it's a term of abuse. I think they say sometimes the law's like the rips it's open to anyone as long as they can pay. So we are lawyers who are working for about a fifth pay of a corporate law firm, or maybe a lot less, and our idea is that we're standing up for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get into the law courts, wouldn't otherwise have a lawyer and people who work here. They're quite diverse, different politics, different religion, different ethnic background, but I think we all believe that there should be something called social justice.

Speaker 2: 4:09

So if lefty lawyers means you represent people on the bottom of the pile, that's us, and we're basically working to make things better for people who haven't got so much access to money and opportunities, so disabled people, homeless people, asylum seekers, people who've had a tough upbringing and maybe haven't responded to it very well. We're trying to get some access to justice and resources for those kinds of people. Something I would like to add is that there isn't any legal aid for environmental and planning cases, and that's really a problem for residents of Weathersfield or local residents if their library is being closed down or at the moment there's a crowdfunding case about Stonehenge, for example. So I think there are people in the middle who may be on a medium income and still can't afford a lawyer, and also there's a lot of cases outside of legal aid. So there's this huge gap that's getting bigger where people just can't get access to a lawyer, and I think that ought to be changed.

Speaker 1: 5:21

I think that's really interesting answer and I must admit, if someone that sits on the sofa and just listens to the news on occasions like when it's put in front of us and the term lefty lawyers come up, they still think, yeah, lefty lawyers, I mean the government's trying to do their best for us all, and that was definitely a perception until being involved with DPG and, of course, the scenario here in Weathersfield.

Speaker 1: 5:44

And then actually what's interesting is DPG are looking at actually enforcing the law.

Speaker 1: 5:51

It's not just being difficult or being awkward or deciding to come out just for the hell of it. They're actually trying to enforce the law of the land really, and if there aren't people around to do that, then it's a bit of a sorry state, isn't it? So, yes, certainly my thought around the term lefty lawyers has changed over the past couple of years, for sure, and of course that's partly down to you and your team and what you've done, which kind of brings me quite nicely onto what you're currently doing and who you're currently working with, which, of course, the local resident, gabriel Clark Holland, on his case. So are you able to tell me a bit about his case, class Q and some of the elements around that the judicial review, what that means and that sort of thing, if that's okay. So just so that, almost like you're talking to a five year old, which you kind of are really on the other end of this microphone, but also to the community, so they can really understand the nub of what we're trying to do here.

Speaker 2: 6:53

Yeah, so I mean in the media it's all been about asylum seekers, you know, local tensions and demonstrations, but actually this is a planning case which is a lot more dry and dull. But I think it's really important that we all have a right to be consulted about decisions that are going to affect our lives. So, you know, if there's a big road planned, you know, in your back garden or the HS2 or an asylum accommodation centre, then you should really be told about it, you should be consulted about it and there should be a proper investigation about what effect it's going to have on transport, on health, you know, on local people and on nature and the environment. And that's what didn't happen here, because what the government did was they jumped on the new emergency powers called Class Q, which were really designed for a war type situation, you know, or maybe a COVID situation or a flood. So under this rule the government's got powers just to totally avoid the normal planning process where there is an emergency situation and emergency is a situation threatening serious damage to human welfare in a place in the UK and the example is given a threat to the loss of life, disruption of health, transport services or homelessness.

Speaker 2: 8:20

So the government's saying there was an emergency with asylum seekers. They didn't have enough places for them, and so this is their response they had the right to just ignore local planning arrangements and not consult the local council about getting permission to have the accommodation centre. What we say is you can't just bypass planning powers in this kind of situation. If you could, you could throw up a hospital, you know, throw up a homeless hostel wherever you wanted. If it was just about homelessness or access to health services, and we say that they've known for years that they need to house the asylum seekers, because they've actually been housing them in this way for over 20 years, it's not a big surprise, and if they had employed enough staff to process their claims more quickly, they wouldn't be in a difficulty. If they found enough places for them to stay and there are other places where they could stay then it shouldn't be an emergency because there are other solutions.

Speaker 2: 9:38

So we're saying that using that emergency power is unlawful. That's our first argument. And then, secondly, we're saying because what they needed to still do is a screening assessment, they needed to work out if there were going to be any serious environmental effects of putting this accommodation centre. They're housing 1700 asylum seekers in the middle of rural Essex on a B road and they carried out this screening assessment and decided no, there weren't going to be any serious effects, so they didn't need to do a proper environmental impact assessment looking at the bigger impacts.

Speaker 2: 10:22

But where we say they went wrong is they claimed that this was just for 12 months. They were just putting this there for 12 months. Well, I think that's not what the local MP has suggested to local people or his assistants have. It's not what's being said behind closed doors in the home office. So the Department of Leveling Up that carried out this screening assessment said oh well, we didn't know any more about it. We thought it was just going to be for 12 months. Well, why then were they doing health contracts for two years and taking on staff for longer periods and talking about three years, five years? So we feel fairly confident about that argument, but who knows what's going to happen in court?

Speaker 1: 11:14

I think that's really interesting and one of the things that we know as a local community is happening. There's so much well, we don't know, but we assume there's an awful lot of money being spent on this. We can see some of the contracts and some of the figures involved there, but we also see some of the lorries going back and forward and deliverism. Port of Gamsah is the obvious one, but sewage tanks and so on and so forth, and we know the cost of these things and we also know the age of the base itself. So do they? I mean, I don't want to put you on the spot here too, but should they have done some sort of cost analysis to this? Well, did they not need to do that, as it was under Class Q? How does that work?

Speaker 2: 12:03

Well, in this case, at the moment we've got Gabriel Clark Holland, but we've also got Braintree District Council and we've got West Lindsay District Council about the other accommodation centre in Scampton, and they're both arguing not just that they should have looked at it for longer than 12 months, but they're saying that she didn't look at everything they needed to look at.

Speaker 2: 12:25

They didn't look at possible contamination, they didn't look at the listing of historical World War I and World War II assets. So they're actually criticising the content of the screening assessment and that if the court lets them get into that, that may be where you can raise the costs question as one of these other questions. They're also arguing that there should have been an inequality impact assessment because there's a duty to foster good relations between people of different races and obviously this has created fear in the local community, hasn't been a big leading process to consult and work with the local community and it's creating conflict with people from outside coming in and causing tension. So they're also arguing that there's a breach of what's called the equality duty which the government has when it makes any decision.

Speaker 1: 13:29

And how will that be picked up, sue, will that be something that will come out with the different people in the court? Will that come out there, or is that something separate for us to look at and pick up later on down the road?

Speaker 2: 13:44

Well, it's one of the three main arguments in the court case that's being brought by West Lindsay and BDC. So they're both arguing about that. So the difficulty is that if the court finds in their favour, then all the government's got to do is look at it again, make another decision, which they might then be a bit more careful about, so it doesn't actually be overturned the decision to the extent that we might wish. So I think that's one reason why we didn't argue it, but we still. It's still important to look at that issue and it might still give us a leg up in terms of winning the case.

Speaker 1: 14:29

Okay, well, I'll come back to that in just a second, if that's okay. But you've mentioned the two other parties involved. You've got Rangeford District Council and West Lindsay District Council. So what's the relationship like between DPG and those other two parties? Are you working sort of hand in glove or is it sort of challenging? How's that working? So it'd be all interested to know.

Speaker 2: 14:53

Is that another trick? Question Tony.

Speaker 1: 14:56

Not at all.

Speaker 2: 14:57

I try not to confuse other lawyers with their clients, so I aim to have a polite work in relationship with my opponent, even if they're representing Suella Braverman, who I might not see eye to eye with. I think it's good to be on good working terms because things get done quicker and in the end that's going to benefit the client. But in terms of the other councils, this is going to be a hard case to win and we really need to cooperate to win the case. I think BDC were a bit hesitant at first because we were critical of their strategy when they tried to go off to the planning court and we thought they should have brought a judicial review. But this week we're all discussing the contents of the court bundles and we've all reached agreement and we would like to be working with BDC. I hope they would consult with us and that the Barristers will agree who's going to talk about what and then between the three of us we can present the best argument when we get to court at the end of this month.

Speaker 1: 16:08

Well, that's fantastic to hear and that's good news, and I have to just add as well, when the previous hearing was going on in the court, I did notice the Casey's getting together to look at a bit of a combined approach as such, which was quite nice to see. It seemed like they were working together in that case, didn't it?

Speaker 2: 16:29

Yes, absolutely.

Speaker 1: 16:31

So just on that.

Speaker 1: 16:33

Then, one of the things and this isn't to detract from what's going on, but one of the things that I know has been suggested has been an enforcement notice, and this is quite a hot potato really.

Speaker 1: 16:44

An enforcement notice against the Home Office because we think that they're carrying on works at perhaps our outsider class queue and I think this has been exacerbated by the fact that Scampton are being so vocal about this at the moment. And there's the stop notices, which of course we know the Home Office aren't paying particular attention to, it seems. Enforcement notices. And then they've got members of Parliament coming out and really condemning the Home Office for just sort of trying to steamroll over things. But I suppose, because it's so newsworthy and Scampton are keeping that side of things in there and without knowing the full knowledge of exactly what really, what information BDC have or what advice they're being given. I know that it was suggested about enforcement notice, do you know? I mean, do you think they should be going for that at this stage or do you think there's reasons why perhaps it's best to keep the powder dry at this moment in time soon?

Speaker 2: 17:44

So this was an idea which came up from a local resident in the first place who had experience of planning. If you remember, the barristers were very keen on it. So we've been, we've written quite a few times to BDC to ask them to put a notice on the Home Office and we last wrote them on 19 September, which we haven't had a reply to their case. Their legal case is that it's pointless to do it because the Home Office won't comply and also they're worried about the legal costs and the fact that they can't enforce it anyway.

Speaker 2: 18:21

Going to see what happened in Scampton, first of all the Home Office didn't let them onto the site. When they did let them on, they wouldn't let them take any photos, but it did stop or pause the erection of this six kilometre long, 2.4 meter high fence. So I know there aren't asylum seekers already on the site at Scampton, so it's a little bit different from Weathersfield, but it does seem to have had some effect and it's drawn attention to the situation and maybe made the Home Office pause. So it's disappointing that Braintree haven't done that, but I suppose you can understand why they're anxious about it. So yeah, I don't think there's too much more to be said, at this stage I can't see them going forward with that. We'll have to see whether their argument in the court that they're kind of trapped because they're being told they can't bring a judicial review and they're being told that they can't bring the stop notice, let's see if that works.

Speaker 1: 19:37

Yeah, I think it's really difficult and perhaps at some stage we might get someone from BDC on the podcast. You never know. And part of the challenge is trying to be balanced about it when we don't know all the information. But we don't obviously as a community. And I think if there's one thing that may be BDC as a local community resident sort of thing, I think it'd be nice perhaps to have got a bit more information from them, a bit more engagement from even our local residents group, the Field Association. Sit down, because we're never against anyone. It's about sitting down, having a conversation and truly understanding either why they can't or won't do something. Now, sometimes we get that people can't share that information with us for all sorts of reasons. But at least have the conversation, say we can't share that information with you, please just trust us, but then there's other things we can do would be really really useful because it just leaves a void. Otherwise then people feel the void, don't they, with all sorts of things, it's always good to collaborate.

Speaker 1: 20:44

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 20:45

I was going to say I think that's one of the things that's come out of the. I hope that's one of the things that's come out of all this for the local residents, that it's brought the community together a bit. I don't know what you think about that.

Speaker 1: 20:56

Oh, I think yeah, absolutely and totally agree with that. I think one of the amazing things is some of the incredible people that live in the local community, some of their knowledge and skills, and I've got to know some of the individuals rather than just knowing the dogs that I pass. You know, I waved all the dogs and say hello to them, but not the owners. But now we know the owners as well and there's some fantastic people here and everyone and, bit like you were saying about DPG, there's a whole range of political motivations and outlooks and views and it actually is quite nice because you get these different viewpoints but all combined and focused on a common goal really, which is which is really about.

Speaker 1: 21:39

I know it sounds a bit sort of cliche, but wrong place, wrong plan the asylum seekers, you know, being put into this quite quite old for environment in some ways, but also for the concerns of local community. Maybe BDC could have done things differently, but we are where we are, so there we go. But just to go back to the point you made earlier, so if we actually win the case there's been a long time come, there's been so much work and everything involved what's the actual hoped outcome for us. What happens if we win the case?

Speaker 2: 22:15

So I think you touched on this at the beginning. A judicial review is a review of the decision, government or another public body, and it's just a review of the decision. It's not an appeal against the decision. It looks at whether is that decision lawful if they followed all the proper procedures, and if they haven't, then the court can declare that that decision is unlawful. But they're not usually forcing them to do anything beyond making that decision again. So they basically usually they'll make a declaration that the decision is unlawful. Occasionally they'll quash the decision, so set the decision aside. That means the government's got to go back and do it again.

Speaker 2: 23:05

And of course in some cases when a lot of money's been spent in planning sort of situation, the court does have a discretion to say, well, it's unlawful, but it's too late. We've already built the HS2 or whatever it is and we won't overturn your decision, but we'll just declare that it's unlawful. If we win, the government might appeal, but I think what it's more likely is that they will use their power to make a special development order. So they'll go to Parliament and make a decision in Parliament. So then it'll become a political decision. So, as with every stage of this case, it's like one of the battles along the way, not necessarily the final victory, but obviously if we do succeed in the case, that will be very important and very good for morale, hopefully.

Speaker 1: 24:03

I think again, it's interesting what you've said there, but one of the outcomes might will be then. So I'm here. It's a potentially a wrap on the knuckles. They might not have to do anything in particular, but of course what it might do is stop them from using Class Q in other places, going forward having been told that the way they've gone about using it potentially is unlawful. Is that correct? May help others.

Speaker 2: 24:26

Yes absolutely it might help others. We know that there's a number of accommodation centres being planned. Scampton isn't yet open, there's Exhill isn't there. But also it might mean that they have to do a proper environmental impact assessment and then we would maybe get more information about the contamination issue. The soil's been broken with aseptic tanks and the pipes, so we might get to find out more information. So that might have an impact here. But hopefully it would lead the government to have to scrutinise their decision a bit more. If they've done a screening assessment for 12 months and it should be for a longer period then they might have to go back and look at things in more detail.

Speaker 1: 25:14

Oh, that's really interesting. So they'll have to potentially have to go back and be a bit more robust about some of the screening elements they've done, which again might then give us more information and it might be more obvious that it's either the appropriate place or an inappropriate place. Is that fair? Am I understanding that correctly?

Speaker 2: 25:36

Yeah, that's a possibility.

Speaker 1: 25:38

All right, well, possibilities are good. We like that. We'll hang on to anything, any hope we've got. And now you've been on to the airbase, haven't you, sue? I mean, what were your thoughts of it? Do you think it's a good place? You think in principle it's the right sort of place for sign and seekers?

Speaker 2: 25:54

or, on a personal level, Well, I hadn't been to this part of Essex before. I was absolutely stunned by how beautiful it was and how pretty all the villages were. The main point I heard from people who were there was not any complaints about well, there's three to a room or anything like that it was the fact that there was this high fence all around them. They're ex-military from Afghanistan and Iraq that are kind of guarding them. There's CCTV cameras there and they're not allowed out. They're very much discouraged from walking out. So there's a bus a couple of hours in the morning and afternoon they can go into town on, but they feel like they're in prison and lots of them have been in detention or prison like police stations, prison type situations before. So that can be quite triggering. And I have to say I got a lift from a member of staff because I couldn't get a taxi back to the station and, based on their driving, I would not want to walk along that B road because the vehicles are definitely fast moving.

Speaker 2: 27:09

The other thing is that a lot of the people who are coming they've only just arrived and you know it's quite different from being a military family with a car used to living on a base other families around you, you know, going to the kids, going to the local schools, between just kind of being dropped there, having just arrived in the UK, it's quite a disorienting, isolating experience. I would like to see asylum claims being processed pretty quickly and asylum seekers being in somewhere much more like purpose built you know where there's other services around them and you know. That helps them settle in and helps us really, because we don't want people that are going to get mentally ill and then you know, need more help and services and have other problems later on. We'd rather have someone who's you know settled in and maybe then they can, you know, join our labour force later on and, you know, contribute. That's the idea, more ideal scenario, I think.

Speaker 1: 28:13

Yeah, I think one of the major concerns that we have as a local community is exactly what you touched on there the road network. I mean, obviously, the obvious one about HDVs coming and delivering everything from food and services to the base, but more so if the any asylum seekers walk to either of the closest villages. You're absolutely right. There are no pavements, there's chicanes and everything else, and not only is it dangerous for the asylum seekers, but, of course, if you're a local resident, you just poodle around a corner, as you have done a million times, and you knock someone down and you're put in the situation where you've. It's a fatal accident that's awful for any individual to have to go through. I mean obviously, particularly the person that's lost their life, but the person that was driving.

Speaker 1: 29:03

That's a real concern to us, and one of the things that we've, when we've had the opportunity to talk to the home office, is the number, the sheer number. 1700 has just hasn't been done before, and you hear the stories about it's not just you know then, if they get 1700, will it be 17, will it be 2002? Now, who would know? And as it grows and more people do venture out of the bases, they're obviously entitled to. That's a genuine concern. So we're trying to say to the home office please, if you're going to have people here, apart from doing it right, please try and cap the number a smaller number, so it's manageable for everyone but, you know, again, that's, that's where we are at this moment in time, but there's a genuine concern and well, you've seen, obviously, the small lanes, it's, it's a real concern for us and I think?

Speaker 2: 29:56

I think they're going to have more trouble, aren't they? When I mean, they've had some difficulties, you know, in adjusting to having, you know, 100 or so asylum seekers there, 1700 at, where there's still 2000 at scampton. You know that's quite a different. You know that's like a village, isn't it? I mean, that's that takes a lot of experience to manage that number of people, especially people who've got, you know, existing health needs yeah, and that experience isn't there because it's never been done before.

Speaker 1: 30:26

So that'll be, that'll be interesting. I mean, they said they're going to take it slowly, so we'll see how that goes and we'll see if the sites fit for purpose as they expand. They haven't had a winter here yet, so that'll be interesting. That's not fun, but anyway I'm sure we'll get through it. But so here's another question for you, because I'll come on to the, the CJ in just a little while. But these cases are so expensive to bring. Where's all the money spent? Where does it go? Why are these things so expensive?

Speaker 2: 31:01

okay. So as lawyers we have to record all our time. So we make a phone call, so draft a detailed letter to an expert, speak to the barristers, give you know, give the client advice. All these things are recorded and then at the end of the case, if we can't agree the costs with the opponent, if we win, then it goes to the court and a cost judge looks at it and generally our work is reduced by about 20%. So we've done about 300 hours work between our solicitors and the barristers, probably done about 100, I'd say. So we are not going to get paid for very much for a lot of that work, because it's been hard to raise money through the crowdfunding. But also we have this thing called an arhaz costs cap.

Speaker 2: 32:01

So the difficulty for someone like Gabriel who brings this kind of case, is what? If they lose, are they going to have to pay the government's cost? You know, and that's a big disincentive and fear for people. We were lucky we have got this because it's an environmental case, he's protected, so he's not going to have to pay more than 5,000, which obviously is still quite a lot of money if you're on a low income and in return for that we limit our costs to 35,000, which may sound a lot, but we've got three lawyers here, we've got two barristers, we've instructed an expert from Durham University to write a report to challenge some of what the Home Office is saying about the asylum system. So, yeah, all of that time costs money, but we did think it was an important strategic case. So we've all given up you know some of our a lot of our time to work on the case and let's hope for the best. Let's hope we're going to win it.

Speaker 1: 33:05

Well, that's really kind of you and what I just do is anyone listening to the podcast and it's growing all the time and we're getting more awareness all the time. I'll put a link to the crowd justice appeal page where people can literally pledge their support. You can do 5,000, 10,000 pounds, obviously. You can do thousands of pounds if you want to, but all that helps. I mean there's been a great community effort so far, but you're right, the costs are amazing. Just sitting in the court and seeing everything, the whole machinery that sits behind getting to the stage where you're presenting in front of the judge, is quite incredible. So, no, thank you very much for that and obviously, on behalf of the community, we really appreciate the time left for you and your team have put in. So I encourage people to go to the crowd justice page, read what's going on.

Speaker 1: 33:55

There's another update Actually, I think that's just gone up today from Gabe, so you can see what the latest is and it's all heading towards the final hearing on the 31st and the first 31st October, 1st November, isn't it? So I mean, sue, that's been absolutely fantastic. That's given me a bigger picture and obviously, hopefully, our listeners. But there are any other points you want to make or anything else you want to talk about or ask.

Speaker 2: 34:20

Yeah, one of the other reasons why it's been expensive is because the government hasn't been very open with us. There's this thing called duty of candor in judicial reviews. They're meant to give us all the information so that we know what's going on, and we've really had to press them to try and get any information out about things, so that's something else that we're pushing in court. But I think that what underlies this is really nothing to do with asylum. It's about housing, and that's the issue that's not really discussed. There is a housing crisis in this country. Mortgage rate is high, young people can't afford to rent, can't afford to get a mortgage, and there's a big gap in terms of producing more affordable housing, looking at existing housing options and it's not going to come out of this case, probably, but it would be really good if people were talking about housing instead of migration, because I think that's the big unspoken problem that we face in this country and it's time to tackle it.

Speaker 1: 35:33

I think that's a really good point, sir. That's quite a nice little place to end it. Actually, I think there's so many things about this case that have been quite opening, eye-opening and in some ways, quite disheartening. But on the plus side, there's some amazing people about that are prepared to fight for justice and sort of put the common people and their concerns and their needs forward From a real-world perspective. I think so I think that's a really good point. About the housing I think something we should be more aware of and that governments should be looking at as well. In agreement with you on that one. So thank you. So is there anything else?

Speaker 2: 36:14

Well, I hope to see you, tony and others, outside the courts and in the courts on 31 October and 1 November. We'll find out exactly where it is in the court the day before the afternoon before, but it does help, I think, if the judge can see that people care about the issue.

Speaker 1: 36:37

We'll all turn up and it's Halloween, isn't it at the court, so we'll make sure we're all dressed up.

Speaker 2: 36:43

Good idea, good idea.

Speaker 1: 36:45

Thanks, sue. You have a great weekend and go and grab your gin and tonic.

Speaker 2: 36:49

I absolutely will.

Speaker 1: 36:51

Thanks for listening. We hope that you enjoyed this episode and found it informative. Please make sure that you subscribe to our podcast so you don't miss a single episode. If you have a question that you would like to raise, or if there is a subject that you think would make an interesting episode, please email us on the link below. If you would like to support the show further, you can do so by clicking on the link below as well. Until next time, goodbye.