E v London Borough of X

The High Court may determine a putative child’s age within wardship proceedings where that issue is necessary to establish or confirm its protective jurisdiction and to further the child’s welfare. Such an inquiry is original, not an appeal or judicial review of a local authority’s age assessment. The court must avoid using wardship proceedings to bypass or supervise the merits of the authority’s statutory assessment and resulting service decisions. The court may determine age on the evidence before it, including evidence unavailable to the authority, provided the proceedings were not continued solely to obtain that result. Wardship was retained because the applicant was 17 and her welfare remained uncertain before majority.

The applicant, a Ghanaian national and ward of court, claimed to have been born on 20 September 1988. The respondent local authority initially treated her as a child and provided foster accommodation, but later relied on an age assessment concluding that she was aged between 20 and 22. The applicant sought a judicial determination of her age within the existing wardship proceedings. The local authority argued that any challenge should proceed by judicial review and that the court should not interfere with its statutory responsibilities. The central issues were whether the court had jurisdiction and should exercise its discretion to determine the applicant’s age, and whether the evidence established that she remained a child.

1. Jurisdiction and discretion. The court had power to determine the true age of the subject of wardship proceedings where that was necessary to establish or confirm its jurisdiction and to promote the child’s welfare. The exercise was not an appellate or supervisory review of the local authority’s age assessment.
2. The court’s inherent jurisdiction must not be used to interfere on the merits with powers entrusted by Parliament to a local authority. That principle, reflected in Re W (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [1985] 791 and section 100(2) of the Children Act 1989, did not prevent an original judicial inquiry into age for wardship purposes. The statute prescribed no particular method of age assessment.
3. It would nevertheless be inappropriate to continue wardship proceedings if they were being misused solely to obtain a decision which bypassed or interfered with the local authority’s assessment process. That was not the position here. The proceedings had been properly commenced, the judicial determination had previously been ordered without appeal, and it would have been unjust to refuse to determine the issue.
4. On the evidence, including consistent evidence from the applicant and her sister, teachers and other adults who knew the applicant, and birth documentation, the court rejected the assessment that she was aged 20 to 22. The inconsistencies concerning her entry into the United Kingdom and family history did not establish that her age was misstated. The court found that she was born on 20 September 1988 and was aged 17.
5. The applicant had therefore been validly made a ward of court. Wardship was not discharged before she reached 18 because her accommodation and welfare remained uncertain. Further submissions were invited on the appropriate terms of the order.