ABD -v- Medway Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003088

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

10 October 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Bourne

Between:

The King on the application of
ABD

-v-

Medway Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission to apply for judicial review, urgent consideration and interim relief and other directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Bourne

  1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, the identity of the Claimant shall not be directly or indirectly disclosed and these proceedings shall be known as ‘R(ABD) v Medway Council’.
  2. Sarah Evans is appointed as the Claimant’s litigation friend pursuant to CPR 21.6.
  3. The Claimant has permission to rely on the first witness statements of David Allen, Albino Bango, Gareth Brown and Elizabeth Davis, and the second witness statement of Lathangie Baskaran. The Claimant also has permission to rely upon the translated witness statement of Safa Mohamad Atim Kerk.
  4. Permission to apply for judicial review is granted and the claim is transferred to the Upper Tribunal for trial.
  5. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is granted. The Defendant shall forthwith treat the Claimant in accordance his claimed age and provide him with accommodation and support under sections 17 and 20 of the
    Children Act 1989 (and as a former relevant child if he turns 18), until the claim is determined or until further order.
  6. The parties shall have liberty to apply to vary or set aside this order on two working days’ notice to the other parties.
  7. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. Although the Defendant highlights the thorough nature of its age assessment process and issues with the credibility of the Claimant’s case, it cannot be said that his factual case, taken at its highest, could not properly succeed in a contested factual hearing. I note that his case draws some support from his physical appearance and his claimed age is accepted by a number of the adults with whom he has come into contact.
  2. I see no practical advantage in granting or refusing permission on specific grounds. The real issue for the UT is what is the Claimant’s age.
  3. Permission having been granted, the Defendant rightly acknowledges that there is a serious question to be tried. In view of the evidence of the impact on the Claimant of living in his current accommodation the balance of convenience favours the grant of the interim relief sought.
  4. In view of the Claimant’s claimed age, welfare issues and asylum claim, it is in the interests of justice to grant anonymity. He has been assigned a randomly generated cypher.