RAK -v- London Borough of Hackney (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CO/4126/2022

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

23 January 2023

Before:

Hugh Mercer KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
RAK (acting by his litigation friend Joshua Singer)

-v-

London Borough of Hackney

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 of service filed by the Defendant

ORDER by Hugh Mercer KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted in respect of Grounds 1 and 2.
  2. Permission is refused in respect of Ground 3.
  3. This matter is to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal.
  4. The Claimant is to be known as RAK for the purposes of these proceedings.
  5. The Defendant shall provide the Claimant with age-appropriate accommodation and support pursuant to the Children Act 1989 until final conclusion of these proceedings transferred to the Upper Tribunal.

Observations

  1. It cannot be said that, taken at its highest, the claim in respect of the age assessment could not properly succeed. Whilst the Decision expressed the cautious opinion that the Claimant “could be” 22 years old, this is at odds with the Home Office conclusion that the Claimant was 18 years of age in August 2022 and the view of his litigation friend and it seems to me that, balancing the possible justice and injustice, I should grant permission on Ground 1 and also on Ground 2.
  2. On the issue of interim relief, in the light of my finding on permission, I agree with and adopt the approach of Michael Fordham QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court in R(BG) v. Oxfordshire CC [2014] EWHC 3187 (Admin) at [35] that no particular vulnerability needs to be shown arising from the arrangements being applied to him but in any event the report of Dr Heke which it is common ground should be admitted (and which admission I have approved) provides sufficient
    evidence of the deleterious effects of the current accommodation arrangements to justify interim relief.
  3. It follows that anonymity is in the Claimant’s and in the public interest.
  4. With regard to Ground 3, material in the Claimant’s witness statement was not available to the Defendant at the time of the decision and the Claimant did not claim to have been trafficked. There is no arguable illegality.