Key Facts
- •The Claimant, a refugee from Afghanistan, was age-assessed as 20 in September 2019 by Greenwich Council, preventing him from accessing support services as a 'child in need'.
- •A subsequent Tribunal Age Determination in August 2021 found him to be 19 in September 2019, meaning he was a 'child in need' and should have received support as a 'former relevant child'.
- •The Council refused to exercise its discretionary power to provide support services retroactively.
- •The Claimant challenged this refusal through judicial review.
Legal Principles
Objective-Correctness Standard of Review for Age Assessments
GE (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1490
Reasonableness Standard of Review for Needs Assessments
Various cases
Discretionary Power of local authorities to provide support to young adults denied 'former relevant child' status due to flawed assessments.
R (GE (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1490
Duty of reasonably sufficient enquiry (Tameside)
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan BC [1977] AC 1014
Outcomes
Claim for judicial review succeeds.
The Council failed to consider the Claimant's 'Now-Known Needs' (needs identified after the flawed initial assessment) when deciding whether to exercise its discretionary power. This was a failure to take reasonable steps to consider a relevant factor.
Council's refusal to exercise the Discretionary Power is quashed.
The decision was unreasonable because it didn't consider the Claimant's needs as revealed by the evidence in the Tribunal's decision. While there's no general rule requiring such support, there's a duty to consider 'Now-Known Needs'.
Council to pay Claimant's costs.
The Claimant's successful challenge was necessary and justified.