The Home Office ignored advice from Public Health England that housing asylum seekers in dormitories in army barracks was inappropriate in a pandemic, months before an outbreak of 120 Covid cases. In a high court hearing on Tuesday – brought by six asylum seekers who claim that conditions at the barracks are inhumane – the Home Office conceded that it was arguable that the use of Napier barracks to house the group was unlawful and in breach of human rights. Counsel for the Home Office admitted to failings and confirmed that, following the launching of several legal actions, sweeping changes to Napier barracks in Folkestone, which has been used to accommodate hundreds of asylum seekers, have been made. Judge Martin Chamberlain told the court that Public Health England advised the Home Office on 7 September last year that dormitories were not suitable accommodation during a pandemic. However, the judge said: “This advice was apparently not followed.” Following an outbreak of 120 cases at the barracks last month, the site was locked down, with residents told they couldn’t leave. At Napier accommodation is divided into blocks, with two 14-bed dormitories in each and shared shower and toilet facilities. While the home secretary, Priti Patel, has previously rejected criticisms of the barracks – describing it as “an insult to say they are not good enough for asylum seekers” as they previously housed “our brave soldiers” – the court heard that sweeping changes had been made following legal challenges, including emptying the barracks of around fourth-fifths of its occupants. Previously there were around 400 people at Napier but as of Tuesday Lisa Giovannetti QC, representing the Home Office, said there were just 63 people left in the barracks. The judge said Giovannetti accepted that a letter circulated to the residents of Napier saying they could not leave the barracks under any circumstances gave a “false impression”, as even when people are self-isolating due to Covid 19 they can leave their homes to seek medical assistance or to avoid a risk of harm. The barracks has been in use to accommodate asylum seekers since September 2020. It is a Ministry of Defence facility built in 1890. Giovannetti said the Home Office would be meeting with public health officials on Thursday to discuss “how to safely manage a Covid outbreak at Napier going forward”. She said that how the 63 people remaining would be divided up in terms of dormitories and blocks was one of the matters that would be discussed at the meeting. “None of the people in Napier should be detained,” she said. Giovannetti added: “The secretary of state accepts unequivocally that there is no power to detain other than Covid restrictions. They are free to come and go.” Emily Soothill, a solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn, representing some of the asylum seekers who brought today’s challenge, said: “We welcome today’s concession by the home secretary that it is arguable that the use of Napier Barracks to house asylum-seekers is unlawful and in breach of human rights. “Our clients were subjected to demeaning conditions in Napier Barracks for over four months while there was a widespread outbreak of Covid-19 in the barracks. Many suffered a deterioration in their mental health before the Home Office was ordered by the court to move them to alternative adequate accommodation. We are therefore pleased that our clients’ claims will now proceed to a full trial on an expedited basis so that there can be proper scrutiny of the lawfulness of using disused military barracks to house asylum seekers. “Refugees seeking sanctuary in the UK, many of whom have experienced torture and trafficking, have the right to be housed in humane conditions and both Napier and Penally barracks therefore urgently need to be closed.” A Home Office spokesperson said: “The government provides safe, warm and secure accommodation with three nutritious meals served a day, all paid for by the taxpayer. Napier has previously accommodated army personnel and it is wrong to say it is not adequate for asylum seekers. “The Home Office has worked extremely closely with Public Health England to minimise risks of coronavirus and this track record will be robustly defended in court. Today’s initial hearing is one step in the legal process – the Home Office has not lost or conceded the case.”