LA's duty towards unaccompanied asylum seeking child (UASC)  

R (on the application of) Liverpool City Council v London Borough of Hillingdon and AK [2008] EWHC 1702 (Admin)

Heard in the Administrative Court before James Goudie QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) on 9th July 2008 (judgment handed down on 18th July 2008).

> judgment

This is an important case concerning the extent of the duty under the Children Act 1989 towards an unaccompanied asylum seeker child where s/he is moved between two local authorities. AK applied for asylum in Liverpool where he was aged assessed as being over 18 - his stated date of birth made him 15. Following the age assessment he was accommodated for 5 days by NASS before being detained and transferred to Campsfield Detention Centre and then to Harmondsworth. Whilst in detention he obtained a paediatrician's report which concluded that he was a child and his asylum appeal was heard. In the course of proceedings the immigration judge accepted that he was a child. He then sought release from detention and was accommodated by Hillingdon Council. AK informed Hillingdon that he wanted to return to Liverpool. Hillingdon contacted Liverpool who asserted that it did not owe any duty to him. A dispute then arose between the local authorities which ended with AK being taken to Liverpool and left at one of the local offices in the city. Liverpool accommodated AK as an adult on a "without prejudice" basis whilst they sought judicial review of Hillingdon's actions.

Liverpool argued that Hillingdon had a duty under the Children Act from the time he was released into its care and remained under a duty despite his being removed to Liverpool.

James Goudie QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) held that Hillingdon were under a duty under the Children Act when AK was released from detention and when he was accommodated by them. As a matter of fact there was no agreement between Liverpool and Hillingdon that the former would take responsibility for him. Hillingdon were wrong to proceed on the basis that there had been such an agreement. However, once AK had been moved to Liverpool a duty under the Children Act arose under the Children Act on the basis that he was a putative child in need "in their area". The circumstances in which he was moved to Liverpool did not mean that a duty did not arise against Liverpool. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to order that Hillingdon and Liverpool accommodate AK pending the outcome of an age assessment. That duty fell solely on Liverpool.

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted to Liverpool.

AK was represented by Adam Fullwood , instructed by Jayne Doran of Jackson & Canter solicitors (Liverpool).