[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 >> A, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department [2014] EWHC 3699 (Admin) (29 October 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/3699.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 3699 (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 WC2A 2LL
		29 October 2014

1. MR JUSTICE KNOWLES: Mr A arrived in the United Kingdom in September 2013. He arrived from Ethiopia and was unaccompanied. He sought asylum. Mr A claimed that he was 16 years old. He was assessed by Kent County Council to be 18 years old. The council decided to terminate his support under the Children Act 1989. The Secretary of State decided to authorise his detention. Each decision was made on 24 October 2013.
2. Mr A challenged the age assessment. He pointed to what Kent County Council said about it in correspondence. A vaccination record was then produced and Kent County Council decided to undertake a review of the assessment. The court gave Kent County Council until 14 March 2014 to notify the outcome of that review. Kent County Council did not do that and as a result permission to apply for judicial review against Kent County Council was granted, permission having been refused as against the Secretary of State a little earlier.
3. An assessment was then in fact undertaken, dated 24 March 2014, and that assessment reached the conclusion that Mr A was 18. There is no appearance from Mr A today and no representation. Documentation that has been supplied to the court on behalf of Kent County Council and including correspondence from the former solicitors (or potentially present solicitors) of Mr A indicates that an attendance and representation today is unlikely. The solicitors are without instructions and are seeking or have sought to come off the record.
4. In the circumstances, and having myself read the assessment of 24 March 2014, the right course is to dismiss this matter as against Kent County Council. I formally discharge the Secretary of State as a party to the claim, as the Secretary of State has invited in correspondence.
5. Does that deal with everything?
6. MR PAYNE: My Lord, there may be one matter which I should have raised which you might wish to include in your judgment, which is that yesterday I asked those instructing me to confirm with the Home Office whether or not the claimant was still at the address that he has always been at throughout these proceedings or whether he has absconded and the Home Office confirmed, as of yesterday, that he was still reporting and still at the address where we have been sending letters, so in terms of his knowledge of this hearing, you may wish to refer to that and I apologise for not mentioning it earlier.
7. The second point is costs, my Lord. We are making an application for costs and there is, I am afraid, absolutely no reason not to make such an order, because on any view the application to come off the record was made very late and there has been no challenge to the amended or to the March decision and you might be thinking, well, because of these proceedings, in necessity of a further assessment, with respect that approach we would say is incorrect because it was the late production of an additional document that required that assessment and you can probably see, my Lord, that interim relief was refused in relation to this case because the claimant hadn't articulated a proper challenge to the age assessment, so I shall ask for the ordinary order.
8. MR JUSTICE KNOWLES: Thank you very much indeed. I take note of, but will not alter the content of my judgment to reflect, the information just provided in relation to very recent awareness on Mr A's part about the imminence of this hearing.
9. So far as costs are concerned, this may well prove a matter that's ultimately academic. I see the force of the points argued in favour of Kent County Council but I notice also that in the course of these proceedings Kent County Council did not move as quickly as the court had required to notify the court of the outcome of the review that they undertook. The court gave them until 14 March. They didn't do that. As a result permission was given and the proceedings moved to this substantive engagement. I think Kent County Council have the outcome that they want but in the circumstances should not have an order for costs in their favour.

Thank you very much.