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...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (AC) v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 3036 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : r-ac-v-birmingham-city-council-2008-ewhc-3036-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 18, 2008, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 84879

(Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court); Charles J; 18 November 2008)

The mother and the eldest child had arrived from Jamaica on 6-month visas; their applications to extend their stay were refused. However, nothing was done to remove the mother and child, and the mother went on to have three more children with a British father. After being in England for 7 years the mother applied for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of the Secretary of State's policy respecting children who had been in the UK illegally for more than 7 years. The Home Office had not yet made a decision. After the mother separated from the British father, she sought support from the local authority. It was accepted that the children were children in need, but the authority decided not to make payments under Children Act 1989, s 17 and potentially s 20, but instead to fund the return of the mother and all the children to Jamaica. The mother sought judicial review of that decision.

Granting judicial review, the local authority had erred in failing to take account of the reasons underlying the Secretary of State's policy concerning children in the UK illegally for more than 7 years; it was not bound by that policy, but it was required to have regard to the reasons underlying the policy. Absent such an approach, there would be a lack of consistency in decision-making by public authorities as to the relevant central point, namely had there been a breach of Convention rights in respect of a family with a child or children who had been in the UK for 7 years. Careful consideration should be given in such cases to joining the Home Office in an attempt to ascertain the Secretary of State's views in an individual case. That would reduce the risk of relevant central and public authority decision-makers reaching different conclusions and could bring to an end expenditure of much needed public money by local authorities in cases of expenditure in respect of persons in the jurisdiction unlawfully who would not be given leave to remain.

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