R (A) v Leicester City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Farmer |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 2351 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3737/2008 |
| Date | 30 July 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 2351 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Sitting at:
Law Courts
Civic Centre
Mold Flintshire
Wales
CH7 1AE
His Honour Judge Farmer QC
Case No: CO/3737/2008
Mr J Anderson appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
The Defendants did not appear and were not represented.
His Honour Judge Farmer:
This is an application for judicial review on behalf of the claimant, A (“the claimant”), against Leicester City Council and the London Borough of Hillingdon.
The claimant is an orphan from Somalia who arrived in the United Kingdom after a long journey via Kenya and Tanzania. For the purposes of these proceedings, her date of birth is agreed as 23 August 1990 (see page 3 of the London Borough of Hillingdon's skeleton argument filed in this case, paragraph 5). She is accordingly over 18 years of age. She arrived in the United Kingdom when she was 16 1/2 years of age and presented as an asylum seeker. Her claim was rejected, as was the claim that she was a child. She was remanded in an adult prison for having arrived in the United Kingdom on a false passport and was released eventually by the Secretary of State into the London Borough of Hillingdon's care. She immediately told social workers that she wished to live in Leicester with a family of Somalis whom she knew, who also told London Borough of Hillingdon that the family wished to look after her, that is, the claimant, in Leicester.
The claimant has consistently maintained her wishes, and moved unilaterally to Leicester to live with the family on 25 August 2007. The London Borough of Hillingdon reported her missing, and police in Leicester reporting under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989 informed the London Borough of Hillingdon that the claimant was not at risk of significant harm in Leicester, living with the family of her choice.
The claimant visited Leicester County Council offices in August 2007 seeking advice, and was told by telephone on 31 August 2007 by Seble Ephrem, a social worker with the London Borough of Hillingdon, that by moving out of Hillingdon area she was no longer a looked-after child as far as the London Borough of Hillingdon was concerned. The London Borough of Hillingdon statement dealing with this aspect of the matter is at the trial bundle page 197 and paragraphs 21–25 read as follows:
“On 31 August 2007 Miss Ephrem spoke directly with [A]. Miss Ephrem advised her that by moving out of the London Borough of Hillingdon she would no longer be looked after but that she could return to Hillingdon to be supported with accommodation and Hillingdon would continue to support her with advice and guidance. [A] was advised that she would need to seek any other support from her local social services. [A] informed her she would not be coming back to live in Hillingdon.
22. Following the conversation referred to in paragraph 21 on 31 August 2007, Miss Ephrem telephoned Uxbridge police, referred to the client's CAD reference number and informed them that she is now in Leicester and gave her address. She requested they inform Leicester Police to visit and ensure client is in a safe place.
23. On 12 September 2007 Miss Ephrem made contact with [A] who confirmed that she did not wish to return to Hillingdon. [A] confirmed that the police had visited her and asked her if she was okay. Miss Ephrem informed her she would no longer be accommodated by the London Borough of Hillingdon and that if she required other support she should contact social services in Leicester.
24. On 12 September 2007 Miss Ephrem telephoned both Uxbridge and Leicester police who confirmed that Leicester police visited and spoke to [A] at the address she went to and verified [A] was safe and well. No concerns were raised. They also informed the Metropolitan police of the situation. Miss Ephrem requested a full report of the visit.
25. On 12 September 2007 Miss Ehprem sent a letter to Leicester Social Services informing them of [A] and her address and that she had voluntarily moved to live with family fiends in their area and is no longer accommodated by Hillingdon. We confirmed that Leicester Police visited the address and have verified that she is safe and well. She informed them that [A] does not wish to return to Hillingdon and is a child in need in their area who may need advice and guidance.”
This letter is referred to as SR2 in Miss Ross's statement. The letter to which reference is made appears at page 187 of the trial bundle as Exhibit SR2 to the statement of Sheila Ross. It reads as follows:
“Re [A], date of birth 23 August 1990:
This is to inform you that the subject young girl, an unaccompanied asylum seeker, has voluntarily moved to live with family friends in your area and is now no longer accommodated by Hillingdon. She is now living with Mrs Noura Mohammed Alaoui at 6 Hollins Road, Leicester LE3 1QU, mobile 07818617479. Leicester Police visited the place on 31 August 2007 and have verified that she is safe and well. [A] says that she is happy where she is and does not wish to return to Hillingdon. As she is a child in need in your area, we have advised her that she may contact your office for advice and guidance whenever she feels the need to.
Thank you for your assistance.”
That letter from Miss Ephrem was addressed to the Social Care and Safeguarding Children Duty Team, 1 Greyfriars, Leicester LEY 5PH. Leicester City Council's response in November 2007 is to be seen at trial bundle page 188 as Exhibit SR3 to Sheila Ross's statement. It was formulated as follows:
“Your department informed us that [A] had moved to Leicester voluntarily in order to stay with family and friends, having been accommodated by your department. She presented to you as an unaccompanied asylum seeker. I am given to understand that she was accommodated by yourself for 13 weeks. Upon her discharge from your care you asked Leicester Police to visit and you were told that she was safe and well. You furthermore advised her that your judgement was that she was a child in need and that she should contact this department for advice and guidance. She has no recourse to public funds and you have closed your involvement.
From the very beginning of this episode we have maintained that [A] remains the responsibility of Hillingdon. Not surprisingly she and her whole family have contacted us requesting financial support. This was entirely foreseeable and I see no evidence of Hillingdon undertaking any form of assessment upon her discharge from care other than asking for a police safe and well check. As a young person who [sic] you had a responsibility for does not have recourse to public funds, it seems disingenuous for you to close the case in this knowledge. It seems to me additionally that given you have not assessed where she now is, it is hard for you to be clear that this is a safe placement for her. A responsible authority would assess this as well as have a robust discussion with carers to ensure they know what it is they are agreeing to. I would argue that if any such arrangement breaks down, your department continue to have full responsibly. It cannot be the case that you discharge your duties under Section 20 and 24 as you have done. You have disregarded your legal as well as safeguarding duties towards [A]. It seems astonishing that when you accommodated her earlier this year you paid her subsistence of £101 fortnightly. It is our view that given she presented to you as a U.A.S, your duties to support her continue beyond her own de-accommodation. She has continued to be advised that Leicester CYPS hold Hillingdon responsible. This view has been conveyed to her advocate. I look forward to your response.”
On 6 December 2007 Leicester City Council carried out an initial assessment of the claimant and recorded (at her trial bundle page 40):
“[A] is an unaccompanied minor. [A] said that she has been in Leicester after leaving Hillingdon. [A] said that she has been staying with family friends at 16 Hollins Road, Leicester. [A] said that she has current status in the UK and is an asylum seeker. Mohamed (family friend) said that [A] cannot receive support from NASS as she is under 18. [A] requested financial assistance and said that she used to receive financial support from Hillingdon. A call was made to Hillingdon SSD stating that they should still hold case responsibility and that they should have visited the family in Leicester and checked them out. DEEPA (social worker from Hillingdon) said that she only visit [sic] service users in London. Seble (Hillingdon) said that the police carried out a safe and well check on 31 August 2007 and confirmed that she was safe and well. The assessment worker informed Seble that he did not agree with this and there was hardly any difference that [A] had come to Leicester of her own volition or it was agreed that should live here by Hillingdon [sic]. The family in Leicester would still have needed to be assessed by Hillingdon and support put in place for [A]. The duty team manager advised that [A] should return to Hillingdon in order that they carry on with supporting [A], and if they want [A] to stay permanently with the family friends they would have to go through the correct procedure. Should [A] state that she has no bus fare to get to Hillingdon, we could provide her with the bus fare to get there.”
Under the rubric of 'What are the views of the child?', the claimant is recorded as saying:
“[A] is seeking financial assistance and support to continue to live with family friends.”
At trial bundle 41, under the rubric ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of AM) v The London Borough of Havering and Another
...cost of funding pending the resolution of such disputes as they arise (see A v Leicester City Council & London Borough of Hillingdon [2009] EWHC 2351 (Admin) at [51]). Conclusion 50 I have set out my essential conclusions at [3] above. 51 For the reasons discussed above, I propose to declar......
-
HJ (by her Litigation Friend Ron Brejier) v London Borough of Croydon
...it was fully arguable that a correct decision had been made by HHJ Farmer QC in R (A) v Leicester City Council and Hillingdon LBC [2009] EWHC 2351 (Admin) when that Judge in that case had concluded that, in a case where a child has been within the area of consecutive local authorities, bot......
-
The Queen (on the application of Birmingham City Council) v London Borough of Croydon
...A behaves unlawfully, authority B remains under a concurrent duty: see A v Leicester City Council and London Borough of Hillingdon [2009] EWHC 2351 (Admin) at §§49, 55 and 56 – 57. Discussion and analysis 97 If I had held that Croydon was under CA 1989 duties towards YG as at 26 October 20......