A, R (On the Application Of) v Cardiff County Council And Others

When applying a detention policy concerning disputed age, the Secretary of State must act on the facts known or reasonably believed after reasonable inquiry. The inquiry must address age specifically and continue where there is reason to believe that the person may be under 18. A later age assessment does not retrospectively make detention unlawful where, at the time, independent assessments and an immigration judge’s findings supported an adult assessment and no adequate material challenged them. The welfare of the child remains relevant, including under Borders Act 2009, section 55, but it does not require prediction of unknown facts or perfection in age assessment.

The claimant, an Afghan national, claimed asylum as an unaccompanied minor. Hampshire Social Services assessed him as over 18 in October 2008, and an immigration judge reached a similar conclusion in February 2010. After permission to appeal was refused, he was detained on 7 July 2010 pending removal.

Following urgent proceedings, Cardiff Social Services conducted a fresh assessment and concluded that he was under 18. Claims against the local authorities were resolved or discontinued. The remaining application sought permission to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to detain, on the basis that the claimant was in fact a child and that the relevant policy had been misapplied.

1. The renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings was dismissed. The claimant had no reasonable prospect of obtaining declaratory or other relief against the Secretary of State.
2. The Secretary of State was required to apply the detention policy to the facts known or reasonably believed at the time, following reasonable inquiry and addressing all relevant issues. Those inquiries had to focus specifically on age. If they gave reason to believe that the person was, or might well be, under 18, further inquiries would ordinarily be required.
3. At the material time, Hampshire Social Services had assessed the claimant as over 18 and represented that its assessment complied with the guidance in R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin). The immigration judge had independently reached a similar conclusion after considering the claimant’s evidence. The Secretary of State had not been given sufficient material demonstrating that either conclusion was flawed. It was therefore not irrational to act on that information.
4. The immigration judge’s age observations were not findings binding on the world or on a local authority that was not a party to the immigration appeal. The position was different where the Secretary of State had participated in the proceedings and there was no good reason to depart from the judge’s relevant findings. The distinction was explained by reference to R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Daniae [1998] Imm AR 84; (1998) INLR 124 and R (PM) v Hertfordshire County Council [2010] EWHC 2056.
5. Welfare considerations, including the duty under section 55 of the Borders Act 2009 and the best-interests principle in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, applied to detention decisions. They did not require the Secretary of State to predict facts not known at the time or impose a duty of perfection. The principle was considered in light of ZH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4.

First-instance renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision in this litigation.