[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Ahmed, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2007] EWHC 312 (Admin) (02 February 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/312.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 312 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		2 February 2007

1. MR JUSTICE LANGSTAFF: This is an application for judicial review in which permission was granted by Sullivan J on 13th November 2006. As it happens, neither the claimant nor the defendant has appeared before me to advance the claim. In the case of the claimant, his former solicitors, Fisher Meredith, wrote to the court on 24th January 2007 to advise the court that they were writing to request they be removed from the court record. They have been unable to obtain any instructions from the claimant for a period of time and they have been advised that the claimant has left the country.
2. The defendant sensibly, being a custodian of public funds, took the view that it would not be beneficial for either the court or for Kent County Council to attend the hearing on 2nd February, and accordingly they too are not present. However, it is to be noted that their absence is responsive to the absence of the claimant to pursue his claim.
3. The claim is a challenge to a decision said to be the ongoing failure of the defendant to undertake an assessment of the claimant's needs, pursuant to section 47 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, and the failure to provide him with accommodation and support pursuant to section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
4. The circumstances are that the claimant says that he was an asylum-seeker from Iraq. He is now 26 years of age. In August 2006 he arrived in the United Kingdom. He claimed asylum. His application remained under consideration at the time of his application for judicial review. He was initially provided with accommodation and support by the National Asylum Support Service, but that was terminated because his behaviour was considered violent and provided sufficient grounds to terminate support. He claimed to suffer from an organic brain injury on account of a shrapnel wound received in Iraq, and from mental disorders. A psychotherapist and psychologist's report concluded that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a mild to moderate depression.
5. He claimed that he had not been provided with accommodation and support under the provisions of the two statutes to which I have referred. The remedy which he sought by his claim was an interim mandatory order to provide accommodation and support; a mandatory order for a lawful assessment to be completed; a declaration that the defendant acted unlawfully in failing to assess within reasonable time and/or accommodation support pending assessment; a declaration that the defendant breached the claimant's rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and any such other relief as the court deemed just.
6. I can deal with this case by focusing upon the relief claimed. All of the orders sought are discretionary. It seems to me that there would be no useful purpose in making an interim mandatory order for someone who is not here to request it. The available evidence, though thin and by hearsay, suggests that he is no longer even in the country. Similarly, that gives no basis for there being a lawful assessment. Declarations are, it seems to me, beside the point for someone who is not here to benefit from them, and it does not seem to me that any other relief would be appropriate.
7. Therefore, even if I had determined this claim on the merits taking them at its highest and accepting everything which the claimant was saying, I would not have made any of the orders for relief which he seeks in the present circumstances. In such a case, therefore, it is unnecessary for me exhaustively to go through and determine the merits. I am comforted in reaching the conclusion I do by knowing that if he should return to this jurisdiction in a state and condition in which he falls within section 21 and section 47 of the relevant acts, those Acts will of course apply to him, and therefore the lack of any order by this court on this occasion is one which simply recognises the absence of the parties, in effect, and does not prejudice any future proper claims that the claimant might have and pursue.