August 11, 2026

MRR -v- Northamptonshire Children’s Trust (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001559

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

11 August 2026

Before:

Duncan Atkinson KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
MRR
(by his litigation friend, Taran Cheema)
(Claimant)

-v-

Northamptonshire Children’s Trust
(Defendant)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY DUNCAN ATKINSON KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

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 MRR.

(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.

(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.

Interim application: it is noted that the Claimant has filed a number of N244 applications. Beyond the anonymity application addressed above, these applications appear to have been overtaken by events, and are not determined further here.
Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Costs: No order as to costs, there being no figure provided by the Defendant to be assessed for this purpose.
Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 1 hour, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) The Claimant is an Afghan national who arrived in the UK on 22/5/2025 and claimed asylum. The issue in this application relates to the assessment of his age. He contends that he is 17 years old, and seeks to challenge the determination by the Defendant through a Brief Enquiry of Age on 5/11/2025 and through a second assessment on 22/12/2025 that he was an adult.

(2) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker who contends that he is 17 years old. Whilst that contention is contested, noting the neutrality of the Defendant in this regard, and notwithstanding my decision as to permission, it would be inappropriate for me to determine the question of his age here. If he is correct as to his age then there would be compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1, and the question of anonymity can be revisited if he seeks to renew his application for permission.

(3) Permission: The core of the Claimant’s submission is that the Defendant failed to engage with the photograph of the Afghan paper Tazkira he provided, or the evidence he relies on as to its authenticity and probative value. However, that submission has to be determined by reference to the decision that he seeks to challenge, rather than by reference to evidence that was not available to the parties at that time, and in particular the expert evidence of Dr Giustozzie, dated 15/3/2026, and Dr Zadeh, dated 21/4/2026 and the video evidence subsequently provided. The challenged decision for the purposes of this application is that following the second assessment on 22/12/2025.

(4) Ground 1: A proper analysis of the assessments that led to the challenged decision on 22/12/2025 shows it to have been structured and non-adversarial. The Claimant was assisted by an interpreter and an appropriate adult. There is no reasonable argument that the process was unfair. Moreover, as was made clear in R (Ham) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924, at paragraphs 10-11, the Defendant was required to determine whether the person was a child, through a fair assessment, rather than to ascribe an age to him. The Defendant was entitled, as part of that assessment, to consider the Claimant’s appearance and demeanour, and the accuracy and credibility of the Claimant’s recorded statements. There is no reasonable argument on the material provided that the assessment failed to address the evidence then available in relation to the Claimant’s Tazkira. Even had the expert evidence now relied on then been available, the Defendant would have been entitled to conclude the document to be unauthenticated, and not to overcome the inconsistencies within the Claimant’s account or the physical evidence relating to his age. The assertion that there was a failure to undertake a lawful assessment is unarguable.

(5) Ground 2: The assertion that the Defendant failed to make reasonable enquiries in relation to the Tazkira is not reasonably arguable given the enquires that were made both of the Home Office and in the assessment with the Claimant about it. As was held in R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 1662 (Admin), the Court should not intervene merely because they consider that further enquiries would have been desirable. Intervention should only occur if no reasonable decision maker could have been satisfied on the basis of the enquiries made that it possessed the information necessary to make the decision.

(6) Ground 3: It is not reasonably arguable that the defendant failed to apply the benefit of the doubt to the Claimant. By reference to R (Ham) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924, at paragraphs 10-11, the Defendant was required to determine whether the person was a child, through a fair assessment. They were not required to ascribe an age to him beyond that.

(7) Ground 4: On a proper reading of the 22/12/2025 decision, there is no proper argument as to the adequacy of its reasoning. The reasoning cannot be impugned by reference to material, such as the expert opinion, which was not then available.

Signed: Duncan Atkinson KC
Date: 11/8/2026