Judges rule that age assessment judicial reviews follow different principles on interim relief
The Court of Appeal has ruled that judicial review claims involving age assessments are fundamentally different from other public law challenges, setting out clear guidance on how courts should approach applications for interim relief in such cases.
The decision arose from a challenge brought by an Ethiopian national, referred to as UYR, who entered England on 17 March after travelling in the back of a lorry. On arrival, he told police that he was 15 years old. When he later sought assistance from Derby City Council, the authority carried out an age assessment and concluded that he was clearly an adult.
UYR issued judicial review proceedings against Derby City Council, disputing that assessment. In the High Court, Karen Ridge, sitting as a deputy judge, granted interim relief. She ordered the council to treat the claimant as a child pending the outcome of the proceedings and to provide accommodation, care and support in the meantime.
Derby City Council appealed, arguing that interim relief in judicial review claims is subject to a high threshold. The council submitted that a claimant must demonstrate a strong prima facie case before the court can intervene in this way.
Embed from Getty Images
Giving the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Zacaroli rejected the application of that approach to age assessment cases. He said that even if judicial review claims generally involve a higher threshold for granting interim relief, there are sound reasons why this does not apply where a claimant’s age is in dispute.
He explained that, in most judicial review cases, the court gives significant deference to the decision of the public authority. The authority remains the primary decision-maker, and the court’s role is limited to identifying errors of law, procedure or irrationality.
Age assessment cases, however, stand on a different footing. Lord Justice Zacaroli said that in such claims it is for the court itself to reach a decision on the claimant’s age, rather than merely reviewing the legality of the authority’s conclusion.
“To the extent that the heightened bar for intervention in such cases is said to warrant a higher merits threshold for the grant of interim relief, that has no application in an age assessment case,” he said.
Despite reaching those conclusions, the Court of Appeal allowed Derby City Council’s appeal on a separate ground. The court held that the deputy judge should not have ordered interim relief against Derby City Council because UYR was already being adequately accommodated by Manchester City Council.
As a result, while the ruling clarifies the legal principles governing age assessment judicial reviews, the interim relief order against Derby City Council was overturned.