BAB -v- London Borough of Islington (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-004115

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:

BAB
(by his litigation friend, Erinç Argün Kayim of The Refugee Council)

-v-

London Borough of Islington

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, including the Application for interim relief, 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. The application for interim relief is refused.
  3. 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 BAB.

(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 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 (Immigration and Asylum) for an age assessment, fact-finding hearing to be convened.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) The Claimant is an unaccompanied asylum-seeker with Iranian nationality and Kurdish ethnicity, who claims to be 16 years old with a date of birth of 1/1/1387 in the Iranian calendar, which converts to 20 March 2008. The Claimant arrived in the UK by small boat on around 4 September 2024. By a claim form dated 2 December 2024 he challenges the Defendant’s welfare assessment of 11 September 2024, which determined that a full age assessment was not required and concluded that the Claimant was aged around 23, and an adult.

(2) The relief sought by the Claimant includes anonymity, an order quashing the age assessment, transfer to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for a fact-finding hearing, and appropriate declarations. The Claimant also seeks an interim order requiring the Defendant to treat him as a putative child and to restore provision of age-appropriate accommodation and support.

(3) The basis of the Claimant’s challenge to the age assessment is that it is simply factually wrong. He also contends that the Merton standards of fairness were not adhered to. 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). The claim, though finely balanced, is arguable. Permission is granted.

(4) The application for interim relief is refused. In balancing the evaluation of the risk of injustice in circumstances where the Claimant continues to be dealt with as an adult alongside adults but is subsequently vindicated by being found to have been a child, as against the risk of injustice to the local authority (including resource implications) if an interim order is made but the local authority is subsequently vindicated, and the claimant was an adult all along, I do not think that interim relief is appropriate, taking into account the fact that this is a finely balanced case on the merits, the risk attendant upon the Claimant being accommodated with children, and that there is no suggestion that the Claimant is particularly vulnerable or has suffered any hardship other than the loneliness that is typical for any young asylum seeker.

(5) Given the Claimant’s contentions to the effect that he is a putative unaccompanied young person, and the fact that his asylum claim is pending, I make an order for anonymity.

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