The applicants had sought asylum. The respondent wished to detain them. They said that they were under the age of 18, which would require them to be released. The respondent obtained expert reports from a senior consultant paediatrician experienced in this issee. Those reports confirmed them to be likely to be under 18. The respondent did not release them, but detained them for a further month obtaining a report from a social worker. That report confirmed the report of the paediatrician.
Held: The respondent’s behaviour was irrational. It was not reasonable, having taken advice at the senior level, to have then continued the detention of the youths awaiting a report from a much less well qualified social worker.
Judges:
Owen J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1025 (Admin), Times 10-Jun-2005
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (B) v Merton London Borough Council Admn 14-Jul-2003
The authority had to decide the age of the applicant, an asylum seeker, in order to decide whether a duty was owed to him under the Act. He complained that the procedure adopted was unfair. The 2002 Act did not apply to persons under 18, and he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226110