FF -v- Medway Council (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001691
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
10 July 2024
Before:
Hugh Mercer KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
Between:
The King on the application of
FF (by his Litigation friend Joshua Singer)
-v-
Medway Council
Order
On an application by Claimant for permission to apply for judicial review and for interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant.
ORDER by HUGH MERCER KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
1. Permission is granted on Ground 1 which challenges the Defendant’s age assessment as a matter of fact.
2. Permission is refused on Grounds 2 and 3.
3. The application for anonymity in respect of the Claimant is granted and pursuant to CPR 39.2, in any report of these proceedings there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant or of the witnesses referred to in his evidence in respect of whom anonymity has been sought not any other particulars likely to lead to their identification. In these proceedings the Claimant shall be anonymised as “FF” and the individuals referred to at paragraph 9 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts and Grounds will be referred to as “MM”, “AA” and “NN”.
4. Defendant will provide the Claimant with age-appropriate accommodation and support pursuant to the Children Act 1989 forthwith until 5 July 2025 (when Claimant will be 18 years’ old on the basis of his claimed age) or until final conclusion of these proceedings, to include the transfer to the Upper Tribunal, whichever is the sooner.
5. These proceedings be transferred to the Upper Tribunal pursuant to section 31A (3) Senior Courts Act 1981.
Reasons
1. Defendant accepts that permission should be granted on Ground 1. Claimant has a Tazkira (confirmed by expert evidence) which supports his claimed age of 16 years on arrival. It is appropriate to transfer this matter to the Upper Tribunal so that relevant facts can be established.
2. Ground 2 in essence challenges the Defendant’s treatment of the evidence and the weight attributed to it which are not arguably errors of approach and in any event a redetermination by the Upper Tribunal of the Claimant’s age will a fresh procedure independent of any past unfairness and a fresh determination of the Claimant’s age.
3. Ground 3 is not a ground but a consequence of Grounds 1 and 2.
4. If the Defendant’s claimed is established, he is currently a child, and it is clearly desirable that the identity of a child should be maintained confidential. That reasoning extends to third parties referred to in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds through whom the Claimant might be identifiable.
5. As regards interim relief, it seems to me that, in circumstances where permission has been conceded, there is a serious to be tried and the lesser injustice would be to accommodate the Claimant in accommodation appropriate to his claimed age until 18 years of age as, if the claimed age is established, accommodation with adults would potentially be prejudicial to the Claimant’s welfare and in any event Defendant would be under a statutory duty to accommodate the Claimant in age-appropriate accommodation.