BMC -v- Derby City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000178

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

25 July 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Rawlings

Between:

The King
on the application of
BMC

-v-

Derby City Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review:

(a) Permission is granted on ground 1.

(b) Permission is refused on ground 2.

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

i.) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as BMC.

(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 the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

i.) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

  1. Expert Report: Permission is given for the Claimant to rely on the report of Dr Zadeh dated 24/2/25
  2. Interim Relief – the Claimant’s application for interim relief is refused:
  3. Expedition – the Claimant’s application for expedition is refused
  4. Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.

(b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.

(d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.

(e) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the hearing.

(f) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is half a day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

(g) Where permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission at a hearing. This must be done by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date on which this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

  1. Reasons for granting permission on ground 1: Permission is granted on ground 1 because it is arguable that, having regard to the ADCS Guidance, it was irrational not to re-assess the Claimant’s age given that: (a) the Taskira, if genuine, supported the conclusion that the existing age assessment based on the Claimant’s appearance and demeanour alone may be unreliable; and (b) the report of Dr Zadeh provided sufficient support for the authenticity of the Taskira to mean that it was at least prima facie genuine.
  2. Reasons for refusing permission on ground 2 and not transferring to the Upper Tribunal: Permission is refused on ground 2 because the decision challenged of 13/3/25 did not assess the Claimant’s age, that assessment was carried out on 7/8/24. The Claimant cannot therefore claim that the challenged decision amounted to an error of fact as to the Claimant’s age. As permission has been refused to challenge a finding of the Claimant’s age as a matter of fact, it is not appropriate to transfer to the Upper Tribunal.
  3. Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker. There is evidence that naming the Claimant will increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice.
  4. Reasons for granting permission to rely on Dr Zadeh’s report: The Claimant relies on Dr Zadeh’s report to support the authenticity of the Taskira which forms a key element of its case on ground 1. Expert evidence is reasonably necessary for the court to consider the likely authenticity of the Taskira.
  5. Interim Relief: It is common ground that the Claimant is now an adult and he is not therefore entitled to be accommodated as a child. No compelling reasons have been given as to why the Claimant would suffer material harm if not treated as a former relevant child, pending determination of his claim.
  6. Abridgement of time/expedition: There is no compelling reason as to why this claim should be dealt with more rapidly than the general body of Judicial Review claims.

Signed: His Honour Judge Rawlings
Date: 25/7/25