Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council; R (M) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1445

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : r-a-v-croydon-london-borough-council-r-m-v-lambeth-london-borough-council-2008-ewca-civ-1445
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 8, 2009, 08:36 AM
Article ID : 88653

(Court of Appeal; Ward and Maurice Kay LJJ and Sir John Chadwick; 18 December 2008)
In each case the local authority had concluded that the applicant was over 18, and therefore not a 'child in need' for whom they had a duty to provide accommodation under Children Act 1989, s 20. In each case the asylum process had concluded that the applicant was under 18. The applicants sought judicial review of the authorities' decisions. The judge held that age determinations by the respective local authorities were not contrary to European Convention on Human Rights, Art 6(1), that Art 8 was not engaged, that the question whether an individual was a child for the purposes of ss 17 and 20 of the 1989 Act was not one of precedent fact that the court could review on a balance of probabilities, and that the authorities had lawfully departed from the decision by another body as to the applicant's age. The applicants appealed, arguing that the authorities' decisions had breached their human rights, in particular because the age determination had been carried out by local authority employees, not by an independent body, and that the issue of age in this context was one of precedent fact.

The determining question in the doctrine of precedent fact was the supposed intention of Parliament. In this case, Parliament must have intended the local authority to take all the relevant decisions. For s 20 to operate effectively social workers had to decide the age of the applicant. Child in need was a composite phrase, and being a child in need was not a limiting condition stated in wholly objective terms. The nature and process of the decision required the implication of words into s 20 so that it read 'Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any person whom the local authority have reasonable grounds for believing to be a child in need'. The provision of accommodation under s 20 could not be classified as a civil right, to which Art 6 applied. If it were to apply, judicial review would provide in any event an effective cure for any lack of impartiality on the part of the social workers concerned. There was no need for local authorities to contract out issues of age determination to independent experts; age determination in this context was not a simple question of fact but required a measure of professional knowledge or experience.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from