Case Law
R (on the application of JF) v Hackney London Borough Council (2010) QBD (Admin) (Calvert-Smith J) extempore 16/11/2010: The non-provision of a care plan by a local authority in respect of a child with severe Autism was unlawful. However, it was inappropriate for the court to order that a particular care plan be provided in circumstances where an incremental care plan was more appropriate. This is one of a series of recent cases clarifying the specificity required in a care plan.
R (On The Application Of H) V (1) Secretary Of State For The Home Department (2) Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council [2010] EWHC 2414 (Admin)(Karon Monaghan QC): It was arguable that the policy of the United Kingdom Border Agency not to detain children other than in the most exceptional of circumstances was dependent upon it being established as a matter of objective fact that the person concerned was a child. Where the age of a putative child is disputed but not yet resolved, the Secretary of State’s decision to detain is unlawful. The local authority’s refusal to provide accommodation under s20, Children Act 1989 on the basis that he does not require accommodation because he is in detention is perverse.
R (RS) v LB of Croydon, extempore judgment (Burnett J), 05/11/10: The test for permission in an age assessment challenge by way of judicial review is whether there is a realistic prospect of success / arguable case that the child is the age he claims to be. There is an ongoing dispute over the age of the Claimant. The local authority's offer of review does not bring the proceedings to an end. The Court is the fact finder of the objective fact of age.
R (SO) v Barking and Dagenham LBC [2010] EWCA EWCA Civ 1101 (Jacob LJ, Leveson LJ, Tomlinson LJ): "Other assistance" in S23C(4)(c) of the Children Act 1989 includes a power to provide acocmmodation. The local authority was not entitled to take into account the possibility of support from the National Asylum Support Service under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 s.95 when considering whether a former relevant child's welfare required them to provide accommodation.
