R on the application of MSK -v- East Sussex County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case no: AC-2024-LON-002128

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

27 September 2024

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Bright

Between:

The King
on the application of
MSK

-v-

East Sussex County Council

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

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 and the Acknowledgement(s) of service filed by the Defendant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Bright

  1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant, nor any other particulars likely to lead to his/her identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “MSK”.
  2. No later than 7 days from the date of service of this order, the Claimant’s solicitors shall file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
  3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
  4. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge paragraphs 1 to 3 of this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  5. Time for bringing the claim is extended to 20 June 2024.
  6. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  7. Until further order, the Defendant shall treat the Claimant as a putative child and restore the provision to him of age-appropriate accommodation and support.
  8. The Claimant has permission to rely on his Translated First Witness Statement dated 19 June 2024 and on his Second Witness Statement and Translated Second Witness Statement dated 19 July 2024.
  9. The matter is transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and
    Asylum Chamber.
  10. Costs in the case.

Observations

  1. I am satisfied that, taken at its highest, the Claimant’s case could succeed at a contested factual hearing. It follows that it is, in this sense, arguable that the Defendant’s age assessment is wrong as a matter of precedent fact.
  2. I note that the Defendant accepts in principle that, on this basis the matter should be transferred to the Upper Tribunal.
  3. The procedural points taken by the Claimant are slender but should be considered together with and in the context of the factual issues.
  4. In these circumstances, it should be the Upper Tribunal that gives further case management directions.
  5. As regards the application for interim relief, the balance of convenience favours the Claimant being treated as a child on an interim basis. He has adduced evidence to show that he may be prejudiced by being treated as an adult (even disregarding the evidence in his Second Witness Statement); conversely there is no evidence that he presents any risk to other children.

Case Management Directions

  1. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, the Claimant is to apply to the Upper Tribunal for case management directions. Such directions should if possible be agreed, and the parties are to use best efforts to find agreement.