A, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

Mr Ian Wise (instructed by Harter & Loveless) for the appellant A
Mr Timothy Straker Q.C and Mr Christopher Buttler (instructed by Bennett Wilkins) for the appellant M

Judges

THE RT HON SIR JOHN CHADWICK
THE RT HON LORD JUSTICE WARD
THE RT HON LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

A, R (on the application of) v. London Borough of Lambeth

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The cases concern disputes over the age assessments of young asylum seekers by local authorities, specifically the London Boroughs of Lambeth and Croydon, which determined that the appellants were adults and thus refused to provide accommodation under Part III of the Children Act 1989. The appellants challenged these age determinations through judicial review, leading to three preliminary issues being tried regarding the compliance of the age determinations with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, the nature of the age question as a precedent fact, and the lawfulness of Lambeth's departure from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's (AIT) decision.

The appellants, referred to as M and A, had conflicting age assessments between the local authorities and other expert opinions or tribunals. M was initially assessed as an adult by Lambeth social workers but later found to be a child by the AIT and a paediatrician. A was assessed as an adult by Croydon social workers despite medical opinion suggesting he was under 18. The court had to consider the legal implications of these assessments and the procedural fairness in the determination of age for the purposes of accommodation provision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the age determinations by the local authorities contravened procedural protections under Article 6 and/or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Whether the question of whether an individual is a child for the purposes of sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 is a precedent fact subject to court review on the balance of probabilities.
Whether Lambeth's departure from the AIT and Secretary of State's decision on M's age was lawful.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bunbury v Fuller (1853) 9 Ex 111	Established the doctrine that courts of limited jurisdiction cannot extend their jurisdiction by wrong decisions on precedent facts.	Affirmed that the existence of jurisdictional facts is subject to court review and not conclusively determined by the local authority.
R v Fulham Rent Tribunal ex p. Zerek [1951] 2 KB 1	Clarified that tribunals cannot confer jurisdiction by wrong decisions on precedent facts.	Supported the principle that courts have supervisory jurisdiction over jurisdictional facts.
Reg. v Home Secretary ex p. Khawaja [1984] 1 AC 74	Confirmed that courts must decide whether precedent facts exist, not just whether a decision maker had reasonable grounds.	Applied to the question of who determines age as a precedent fact under the Children Act.
R v Dyfed County Council ex parte S (Minors) [1995] 1 FCR 113	Discussed the application of the precedent fact doctrine in local authority decisions.	Referenced in considering the limits of judicial review and local authority discretion.
R (on the application of B) v Merton London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin)	Set out the practical approach to age assessments, emphasizing informality and avoidance of judicialisation.	Used to illustrate the complexity and nature of age assessments by social workers.
R v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Garlick [1993] AC 509	Confirmed that local authorities are responsible for evaluating mental capacity and making immediate decisions.	Supported the argument that local authorities must make timely assessments in welfare contexts.
Lambeth LBC v TK and KK [2008] EWCA Civ 103	Held that the court, not the local authority, determines threshold requirements for judicial powers under section 37.	Distinguished from section 20 decisions where local authorities have administrative responsibility.
Reg. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Zamir [1980] AC 930	Implied that local authorities must have reasonable grounds for belief in determinations under section 20.	Supported the interpretation that local authorities decide age on reasonable grounds for administrative effectiveness.
Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2003] UKHL 5	Recognized that judicial review can satisfy Article 6 requirements in administrative decision-making affecting civil rights.	Applied to confirm that judicial review is an adequate remedy for challenges to age determinations.
Masson and Von Zon v Netherlands (1996) 22 EHRR 491	Distinguished between absolute rights and discretionary powers in the context of civil rights under Article 6.	Used to analyze whether the right to accommodation under section 20 is a civil right or discretionary benefit.
R (M) v Gateshead MBC [2006] EWCA Civ 221	Confirmed that section 20 imposes an absolute duty to provide accommodation where conditions are met.	Supported the finding that the local authority's duty is mandatory and not discretionary.
R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] UKHL 23	Clarified the scope of Article 6 in relation to administrative decisions affecting civil rights.	Used to support the view that determinations affecting civil rights require procedural fairness.
W v United Kingdom (1988) 10 EHRR 29	Recognized procedural rights under Article 6 in family law contexts.	Referenced to support the existence of civil rights in welfare-related decisions.
Case of Capital Bank AD v Bulgaria (2007) 44 EHRR 48	Confirmed that rights subject to revocation can still be civil rights for Article 6 purposes.	Used to argue that disputed entitlement to accommodation can engage Article 6 protections.
Wos v Poland (2005) App. No. 22860/02	Held that eligibility for compensation under domestic regulations can constitute a civil right.	Supported the argument that the right to accommodation is more than a mere claim.
Salesi v Italy 26 EHRR 187	Extended Article 6 protection to public law rights resembling private law rights such as welfare entitlements.	Applied to the nature of the accommodation right under the Children Act.
Tsfayo v United Kingdom [2007] HLR 19	Confirmed that disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits fall within Article 6.1.	Used to support procedural protections for age determinations affecting accommodation rights.
Secretary of State for Health v Beeson [2004] LGR 92	Held that decisions about residential care involve civil rights engaging Article 6.	Used to analogize the provision of accommodation under the Children Act.
R (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health [2007] EWCA Civ 999	Discussed the extent to which lack of independence at first instance can be cured by judicial review.	Applied to assess the independence and impartiality of social workers in age assessments.
The Queen on the application of Bewry v Norwich City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 657	Held that lack of independence in decision-makers connected to a party can infect fact-finding.	Distinguished on the basis that social workers are professionals subject to codes of conduct.
Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35	Established the test for perceived bias requiring a public perception of possible unconscious bias.	Applied to evaluate the social workers' impartiality.
Feld v Barnet LBC [2005] HLR 9	Stated that trained decision-makers should be presumed to approach decisions with an open mind.	Supported the view that social workers' decisions are not likely to be biased by their employment.
R (on the application of Beeson) v Dorset County Council [2004] LGR 92	Confirmed that judicial review can satisfy Article 6 where no substantive reason to question fairness exists.	Supported the adequacy of judicial review as a remedy for age determination challenges.
R (B) v Merton London BC [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin)	Outlined the practical approach to age assessments by social workers.	Used to confirm that social workers have the expertise to make age determinations.
R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2008] UKHL 14	Confirmed that section 20 duty extends to children up to age 18.	Supported the legal framework for entitlement to accommodation.
R (Gilboy) v Liverpool City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 751	Held that procedural safeguards under Article 8 are unlikely to violate Article 6 where Article 6 compliance exists.	Applied to reject separate Article 8 procedural claims in age assessments.
R (Fazia Ali) v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1228	Confirmed that judicial review is sufficient to meet Article 6 requirements in welfare decisions.	Reinforced the adequacy of judicial review for challenges to administrative decisions.
R v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Garlick [1993] AC 509	Confirmed the local authority's evaluative role in social welfare decisions.	Supported the administrative discretion vested in local authorities.
R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] UKHL 23	Emphasized the importance of democratic accountability and efficient administration in administrative decisions.	Supported the entrusting of age determinations to social workers within statutory schemes.
Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2003] UKHL 5	Held that administrative discretion in welfare schemes can be compatible with Article 6 where judicial review is available.	Applied to confirm that judicial review suffices for age determination challenges.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory scheme under the Children Act 1989, focusing on Part III which imposes a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation to children in need. The court emphasized that the duty under section 20 is absolute once the qualifying criteria are met, including the determination that the applicant is a child in need within the local authority's area.

The court examined whether the question of age is a precedent fact subject to court determination or an evaluative judgment entrusted to local authorities. It concluded that Parliament intended local authorities to make the age assessment as part of their administrative functions, not the courts. The decision-making process involves complex evaluative judgments, including whether the individual is a child in need, which are not purely objective facts but include subjective assessments.

Regarding procedural fairness under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court recognized that the social workers conducting age assessments are not independent tribunals, thus constituting a breach of Article 6(1). However, the court held that the availability of judicial review, which provides a full supervisory jurisdiction to challenge the lawfulness and fairness of decisions, is sufficient to cure this breach. The court distinguished this case from others where decision-makers were directly connected to parties resisting claims, noting the professional standards and codes governing social workers.

The court rejected the argument that the right to accommodation under section 20 constitutes a civil right in the strict sense because the local authority exercises significant discretion in the type of accommodation provided, ranging from foster care to independent living arrangements. Nonetheless, it accepted that the child has at least an arguable right to accommodation once the criteria are met, engaging procedural protections.

Finally, the court considered whether Article 8 (right to private life) was engaged by the age determination. It concluded that the age assessment alone does not engage Article 8 because it is a preliminary decision that does not directly affect the individual's physical or psychological integrity or personal autonomy. The procedural safeguards of Article 6 are primary in this context.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to DISMISS the appeals.

Directly, this means that the local authorities' age assessments and consequent refusal to provide accommodation were upheld. The court affirmed that age determinations are administrative decisions for local authorities, subject to judicial review but not to full judicial fact-finding at the outset. The decision confirms the procedural adequacy of judicial review as a remedy for challenges to age assessments under the Children Act 1989 and clarifies the limited role of courts in such administrative determinations.

No new precedent was established beyond confirming existing principles regarding administrative discretion, the application of Article 6 procedural protections, and the non-engagement of Article 8 in isolated age assessments. The judgment acknowledges the difficulties faced by young asylum seekers and suggests that reform of the age assessment process would be beneficial but leaves the current legal framework intact.