0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

judges can now decide who is a child, rules Supreme Court

2 December 2009

In a landmark decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled that where the assessment of the age of an individual is disputed, this issue should now be decided by a court.

In the joint hearing of R(A) v LB Croydon and R(M) v LB Lambeth [2009] UKSC 8, two young immigrants, A and M, sought accommodation under Section 20(1) of the Children Act 1989. However, they were refused this as the relevant local authorities assessed them to be at least 18, and so adults. A and M argued that in cases of disputed age, the court must decide whether a person is a child, with the burden of proof being the balance of probabilities. The respondent local authorities disagreed, and argued for a continuation of the current position, where age assessments were a matter for the local authority alone to decide, with judicial scrutiny of the local authoritys decision limited to judicial review.

The Supreme Court agreed with the applicants. In the leading judgment, Lady Hale ruled that the assessment of age is not an exercise of discretion by a local authority. It is a finding of fact. If the local authoritys determination of the age is contested, then as with other factual disputes, a court should decide the issue.

Local authorities have to make age assessments with increasing frequency, given the growing number of migrants and young asylum seekers who claim to be under 18, but have no formal identification.

There seem to be several procedural options for applying for an age assessment by the court. It should be possible to bring a specific issue application under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989, as well as a free-standing application under Part 8 Civil Procedure Rules, and also an application to the Administrative Court.

Guidance for the conduct of age assessments was given in 2003 in R(B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin). A Merton-compliant age assessment should contain all the evidence a local authority would want to rely upon at the hearing, and so a court application by an individual challenging the assessment should not force the local authority to rush around gathering new evidence.

However additional resource will be needed to cover the hearing of these applications. The Merton guidelines require an age assessment to be signed by two individuals, and both should be ready to give oral evidence at the hearing. This in turn flags up for local authorities a need to give their age assessors witness training.

training and events

31Mar

Cancelled - Planning club Birmingham office

Our regular planning club will be covering planning enforcement POCA and enforcement notices, town and village greens after the Lancashire case, and a planning case law update.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

Director duties and Covid-19

Boards across the country are working tirelessly to respond to an ever-evolving situation as quickly as they can - with one eye on trying to protect the business, employees and wider stakeholders and the other on ensuring that they are always acting in the best interests of their shareholders.

View

Public and Admin Law

In our administrative and public law webinar, a number of key members of the team will be providing an analysis of issues that matter to you.

View

Legal updates

Companies to receive a 3 month extension period to file accounts during COVID-19

As part of the Government’s package to support businesses to manage the impact of COVID-19, it has announced that companies will from today (25 March 2020) be given an additional 3 month period to file their accounts at Companies House.

View

Legal updates

Safeguarding in uncertain times – do not forget the record keeping

There is so much understandable focus on the pressures NHS frontline workers face today that it is easy to forget what enormous challenges safeguarding teams and their managers also have to address.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up