LPT -v- Bedford Borough Council and Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-003129

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

7 July 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Martin Spencer

Between:

The King
on the application of
LPT
(Claimant)

-v-

(1) Bedford Borough Council
(2) Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendants)

Order

UPON consideration of the Claimant’s N461 Claim Form, N463 Application for Urgent Consideration and Witness Statement of Edward Taylor dated 7 July 2026

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Martin Spencer:

Litigation Friend

  1. The Claimant, who on claimed age will turn 18 on 27 September 2026, is permitted to conduct these proceedings without a litigation friend. This order will cease to have effect should the Claimant’s professional legal representation end.

Anonymity

  1. 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 LPT.

    3. 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.

      4. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C and 5.4D:

      (i) A person who is not party to the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised in accordance with paragraph 2 above; and

      (ii) If a person who is not party to the proceedings applies for permission to inspect or obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitor.

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

      Interim Relief

      1. The Second Defendant shall not deport the Claimant to France on 9 July 2026 and shall not arrange a further removal date pending determination (on the papers) of his application for permission in these proceedings.
      2. At the permission stage, the Claimant’s application for interim relief shall be reviewed, taking account of the permission decision made and written arguments from the parties.

      Initial Case Management Directions

      8. The First Defendant shall disclose the following to the Claimant’s solicitors within 7 days of this order:

      (i) The “brief enquiry as to age assess” referred to in its letter of 03.07.2026 which is said to contain the rationale for its decision;

      (ii) The notes taken by each social worker during the interview held with the Claimant on 02.07.2026; and

        (iii) Information as to the whether the interpreter at the aforementioned interview attended the interview in person or through remote means, and if remote whether that was by video or telephone.

        9. By no later than 21 days following receipt of the disclosure referred to above, the Claimant shall file and serve an amended Statement of Facts and Grounds. If so advised, the Claimant may file and serve a witness statement by him at that stage in support of his factual challenge on age.

        1. The 21-day period for the First and Second Defendants to file and serve Acknowledgments of Service shall run from service of the amended Statement of Facts and Grounds pleading, as addressed in paragraph 9 above.
        2. Permission for judicial review shall thereafter be determined by the Court, initially on the papers in the usual way.

        Liberty to Apply

        1. Any party shall have liberty to apply to the court to vary or discharge this Order upon 24 hours written notice to the other parties.

        Costs

        1. Costs in the case.

        REASONS

        1. The Claimant arrived in the UK on or around 17 April 2006. He gave his date of birth as 21 January 2004. On 22 May, the Second Defendant notified the Claimant that he would be removed to France on 4 June. On or around 2 June 2026 the Claimant claimed to be 17 years old with a date of birth of 27 September 2008. The witness statement of Mr Edward James Taylor dated 7 July 2026 gives an explanation for why the Claimant gave an adult date of birth initially.
        2. The Second Defendant cancelled the removal directions for 4 June. The First Defendant then assessed the Claimant to be significantly over 18, ascribing him the date of birth that the Claimant initially provided (i.e. 21 January 2004). On 1 July, the Claimant was notified by the Second Defendant that he will be removed to Paris, France on 9 July 2026.
        3. The Claimant’s removal is pursuant to the “one in, one out” asylum arrangement between the UK and France. However, unaccompanied children (under the age of 18) are excluded from the arrangement. Whether the Claimant is aged under 18 or over 18 is accordingly a critical question of fact.
        4. Given that, although claiming to be a child, the Claimant will on his case turn 18 in September and given the urgency of this application and the fact that he has legal representation, it is appropriate that he should be given permission to proceed without a Litigation Friend.
        5. Given that it is claimed that the Claimant is a child, it is appropriate to make an anonymity order.
        6. There is no requirement for the Claimant to show a strong prima facie case, nor even for the court to accord deference to the primary decision-maker’s decision. As the CA said in Derby City Council v R (UYR) [2025] EWCA Civ 1648:

        “The fact that, in judicial review proceedings against an age assessment, the age of the young person concerned is an objective fact subject to ultimate determination by a court, was established by the Supreme Court in R(A) v Croydon London BC [2008] UKSC 8; [2009] 1 WLR 2557. That is in contrast to the court being required to review the local authority’s decision on conventional public law principles, where considerable deference is afforded to the primary decision maker’s decision.”

        1. In my judgment, pending the determination of permission, the balance of convenience lies with the maintenance of the status quo and therefore the First Defendant is to be prohibited from removing the Claimant on 9 July as proposed.
        2. Given that this Order has been made without Notice to the Defendants and without the Defendants having been given a chance to make representations, it is appropriate that they should have liberty to apply to vary or discharge this Order, upon 24 hours’ notice to the Claimant.

        Signed: Martin Spencer J

        Dated 7 July 2026