IA -v- Cardiff City Council (application for judicial review)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity OrderJudgment

Case Number: CO/2777/2023
AC-2023-CDF-000089

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

2 October 2023

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:
His Honour Judge Lambert

Between:
The King on the application of
IA
-v-
Cardiff City Council

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.

ORDER by His Honour Judge Lambert sitting as a judge of the High Court

  1. Pursuant to CPR r. 39.2(4) the Claimant is granted anonymity and is to be referred to as “IA”. The identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed outside these proceedings. There shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to the identification of the Claimant. This application shall be known and listed only as above
  2. Pursuant to CPR rule 21.2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Claimant has permission to conduct these proceedings without the appointment of a litigation friend.
  1. Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as IA; and (b) that any identifying reference to the Claimant be deleted from those documents.
  2. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection under section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The amount of costs that the Claimant shall pay shall be determined on an application by the Defendant under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013. Any objection by the Claimant to the amount of costs claimed shall be dealt with on that occasion.

Reasons

I have applied the sub-Wednesbury criterion for permission. R (A) v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8, indicates that whether someone is a ‘child’ on a particular date is a question of fact to be determined by the Court itself, rather than being subject to review on conventional public law grounds. Your factual case on age, taken at its highest, could not properly succeed in a contested factual hearing. Careful (certainly not superficial), prolonged and multifactorial consideration has been given to your age. You have had every opportunity to be heard during the investigation of your age and have had independent support and guidance throughout. The social workers spent a significant amount of time with you examining your account that you are a child. They are entitled to rely upon your appearance, and this was far from the only factor in the determination that you are clearly an adult. A special need for caution over appearance was properly appreciated and applied. They considered your stated background, previous statements to the authorities and your demeanour, as they are required and entitled to. The assessment was made on all the evidence exercising appropriate caution not to give undue weight to any individual factor. I do not believe it can be impugned.

Signed PJL Lambert (Julian Lambert) sitting as a judge of the High Court 02.10.23