Right to Work Case Has Now Reached the Court of Appeal

I have now taken my case to the Court of Appeal.

The High Court refused permission to proceed, not because the issues lack merit, but on the basis that the challenge was “premature.” In other words, the court decided that it was too early to examine the legality of what is happening.

I disagree with that conclusion, and that is why I have appealed.

This case turns on a simple but important question.

At what point does a system become real enough to challenge in law?

The government has repeatedly framed digital identity as something that is still being developed, with full rollout often discussed as taking place later in this Parliament. That framing has led some to assume that nothing of substance is happening yet.

But that does not reflect the reality for many people.

For certain groups, digital verification is already the only accepted method of proving the right to work. Physical documents have effectively been sidelined in those cases, and the process depends on an online system.

If that system works, the process moves forward.

If it does not, or if an individual requests an alternative method of verification, the process can stop altogether.

This is not a theoretical concern. It is something people are experiencing now.

I have been contacted by individuals who have been unable to start jobs, have had offers withdrawn, or have been prevented from progressing in recruitment because they could not complete a digital verification process.

Others have described situations where employers, concerned about compliance and potential penalties, refuse to proceed unless the digital route is used.

These are not isolated or abstract examples. They are real situations affecting people’s ability to work and earn a living.

That is why the suggestion that this issue is “premature” does not hold.

In public law, a measure becomes open to challenge once it has real-world legal effect. It is not necessary to wait until a system is fully rolled out across the entire population.

The question is whether it is already determining outcomes.

In this case, it clearly is.

The system in question is already being used to decide whether someone can lawfully work. It is already acting as a gatekeeper. For those affected, it is not a future policy—it is a present condition.

The High Court treated the scheme as something still in development. My appeal challenges that characterisation.

The legal issue is not whether a broader digital identity framework will be introduced in the future.

It is whether a system that is already operating in practice can be treated, in law, as if it does not yet exist.

That distinction matters.

If individuals must wait until a system is fully implemented before they can challenge it, they may be left without any meaningful recourse during the period in which its effects are already being felt.

That is not how the law is supposed to function.

Courts have long recognised that where a system creates real-world barriers to the exercise of legal rights, it is capable of being reviewed. The ability to work is not a theoretical interest. It is a fundamental part of everyday life.

This case is not about opposing identity verification.

Checks have always existed, and they serve a legitimate purpose.

The issue is whether those checks can become exclusively digital, without a meaningful alternative, and without proper scrutiny of the consequences.

What happens when a system fails?

What happens when someone cannot access it?

What happens when an employer refuses to consider anything outside that system?

Those are not abstract policy questions. They are practical realities that people are already facing.

The Court of Appeal will now consider whether the High Court was right to treat this claim as premature, or whether the presence of current, ongoing impact makes it appropriate for the case to proceed.

This is not about speculation or future risk.

It is about whether the law should recognise and respond to what is already happening.

Support the case:
https://gofund.me/5b58d6f5b