R (O) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 925 (Rix LJ, Lloyd Lj and Black LJ): The Court of Appeal held that the Court's duty to consider the welfare of the child under s1, Children Act 1989 does not apply in the context of judicial review.
Another age assessment case to add to the collection to give further information as to how courts generally are dealing with age dispute claims:
R (AE) v LB of Croydon (Sir Frances Patterson Q.C.), extempore judgment: Court held that although the evidence was finely balanced and the Claimant was generally credible some of his inconsistencies led the Court to find that he was not the age he claimed to be.
You may want to consider the above case alongside recent ones such as:
R (on the application of Y) v Hillingdon London Borough Council[2011] EWHC 1477 (Admin) (Keith J): Click here for judgment.
R (on the application of R) v Croydon London Borough Council[2011] EWHC 1473 (Admin) (Kenneth Parker J): This is the first case post- A v Croydon to consider the role of expert medical evidence in the assessment of age. The Judge found Dr. Birch’s statistical methodology unhelpful but found however that had she relied on her clinical judgment as an experienced consultant paediatrician, her evidence would carry a lot of weight. Click here for the judgment.
