GE, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

A person qualifies as a “former relevant child” under the Children Act 1989 by reference to services actually received during minority, not merely services which a local authority ought to have provided. Accommodation supplied by another body, such as asylum support, cannot be treated as accommodation provided under section 20 unless the statutory conditions for attributing the accommodation to the local authority are established.

Those conditions include a section 20 duty, action by or imputable to the social services department, actual provision of accommodation by the local authority, and a causal link between that action and the accommodation.

The claimant, an Eritrean national, arrived in the United Kingdom claiming to be a child and seeking asylum. The Secretary of State treated her as an adult and proposed removal to Italy. During the proceedings, she received asylum support and accommodation from UKBA pursuant to a court order.

She claimed that Bedford Borough Council owed her duties as a “former relevant child” under sections 23C and following of the Children Act 1989, because the Council had failed to provide services during her alleged minority. The central issue was whether a person who ought to have received such services, but did not receive them, could qualify as a former relevant child.

1. The claim against Bedford Borough Council was dismissed. The claimant’s finding of being over eighteen was sufficient for the Council proceedings, and the stay against the Secretary of State was lifted.
2. The statutory definitions of “looked after” child, “relevant child”, “eligible child” and “former relevant child” depend on services or accommodation having been provided, not merely on a local authority having owed a duty to provide them.
3. Accommodation may be treated as provided under section 20 where there was a section 20 obligation, action by or imputable to social services, actual provision or arrangement by the local authority, and a causal link between that action and the accommodation.
4. The court distinguished R (R) v Croydon. It did not establish that UKBA asylum-support accommodation could generally be treated as section 20 accommodation or that it automatically entitled a claimant to former-relevant-child status.
5. The continuing functions in sections 23C and following extend assistance previously given to children. They do not require assistance for adults who received no relevant assistance as children.
6. On the facts, the accommodation resulted from a court order, not the Council’s referral. There was therefore no causal link, and the accommodation was not provided by or under the Council’s auspices.