KRA, R (on the application of) v Cheshire East Council
[2024] EWHC 575 (Admin)
AF, R (on the application of) v Milton Keynes Council
30 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 163 (Admin)
High Court
A council didn't do its own check to see if someone was a child or an adult, just relied on a bad government check. A judge said the council had to do its own proper check and then decide what to do to help the person, even though the person is now over 18.
Key Facts
- •AF, a Syrian asylum seeker, claimed to be a child upon arrival in the UK in November 2021.
- •The Home Office conducted an age assessment via the Kent Intake Unit (KIU), determining AF to be over 18.
- •Milton Keynes Council (Defendant) relied on the Home Office assessment and did not conduct its own.
- •AF's solicitors requested an age assessment from the Council, citing the inadequacy of the KIU assessment.
- •The Council refused, stating its reliance on the Home Office assessment.
- •AF brought judicial review proceedings, challenging the Council's refusal.
Legal Principles
Tameside Duty: Local authorities must properly inform themselves whether an applicant is a child before refusing services under the Children Act 1989.
Secretary of State for Education Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
Local authorities must conduct their own age assessments, independently of the Home Office, to comply with the Tameside Duty.
R (AB) v Kent County Council [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin)
Age assessments must be 'Merton compliant,' meeting minimum standards of inquiry and fairness.
R (B) v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin)
Wednesbury Unreasonableness: A decision is unlawful if it is outside the range of reasonable responses.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223
Local authorities may use discretion to provide services under s.23C of the 1989 Act even to those over 18.
R (GE (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1490
Academic appeals should not be heard unless there is good reason in the public interest.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Salem [1999] 1 A.C. 450
Outcomes
Claim succeeds.
The Council unlawfully failed to conduct its own age assessment, relying instead on an unlawful Home Office assessment.
Mandatory order for a Merton compliant age assessment.
To remedy the unlawful failure and determine whether the Council should exercise its discretion to provide services under s.23C of the 1989 Act.
Mandatory order for the Council to decide on providing services under s.23C if the age assessment confirms AF's stated age.
Due to the Council's previous unhelpful behaviour and failure to engage.
Similar Cases
HP, R (on the application of) v The Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Greenwich
[2023] EWHC 744 (Admin)
LS, R (on the application of) v Warrington Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 2872 (Admin)
AM, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council
[2024] EWHC 2670 (Admin)
MAA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hounslow
[2024] EWHC 1894 (Admin)