AVM -v- Hampshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-003717

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

4 March 2025

Before:

Hugo Keith KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

AVM

-v-

Hampshire County Council

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance

IT IS ORDERED by Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, that

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  2. An order for anonymity is made:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:

i. the name of the Claimant is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public, or to any person who is not a party to these proceedings; and

ii. the Claimant is to be referred to as AVM.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to his identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case or any other document filed with the Court, including the Confidential Schedule, from the court records only if they have been completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimant or her son have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.

(d) Any non-party wishing to obtain or inspect documents in the case must do so by making an application to the Court, to be served on both parties, on 48 hours’ notice.

  1. The claim is to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal for an age assessment, fact-finding hearing to be convened.
  2. The requirement that the litigation be conducted via a litigation friend is dispensed with.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) By a claim form dated 31 October 2024 the Claimant challenges the Defendant’s age assessment decision of 1 August 2024, to the effect that the Claimant was aged over 18, and an adult. The Claimant is a Sudanese national with a date of birth, as given by him, of 10th January 2007, so that he was 17 at the time of the assessment but currently 18. The Claimant arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat in March 2024, having originally left Sudan in 2023. Following an interview by two ‘Merton’ trained social workers, it was assessed that the Claimant was aged 25, with a date of birth of allocated of 10th January 1999.

(2) The relief sought includes anonymity, an order dispensing with the requirement that the claim be conducted via a litigation friend, an order quashing the age assessment, and transfer to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for a fact- finding hearing.

(3) The basis of the Claimant’s challenge to the age assessment is that it is simply factually wrong. He contends that the reasoning of the assessors was inadequate, that the other evidence before the assessors, including the views of the Claimant’s social workers and placement worker, weighed against their age assessment conclusion, and that the assessment process was unfair due to a lack of a ‘minded to’ process.

(4) The Defendant argues that the claim was not filed promptly, as required by CPR 54.5(1)(a). Although no explanation has been given on behalf of the Claimant as to why the claim was not filed more promptly, I do not refuse permission on this ground, given the nature of this case.

(5) I cannot conclude that “the material before the court raises a factual case which, taken at its highest, could not properly succeed in a contested hearing” (R (FZ) v Croydon at §9). Although there is no witness statement from the Claimant, and no documents that prove the Claimant’s age, the claim raises significant issues. Permission is granted.

(6) Given the Claimant’s contentions as to his age, I make an order for anonymity, in order to hold the ring. I order that the requirement that the litigation be conducted by a litigation friend be dispensed with.

Signed: Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Date: 4 March 2025