A, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department

J U D G M E N T

1. MR JUSTICE KNOWLES: Mr A arrived in the United Kingdom in September 2013. He arrived from Ethiopia and was unaccompanied. He sought asylum. Mr A claimed that he was 16 years old. He was assessed by Kent County Council to be 18 years old. The council decided to terminate his support under the Children Act 1989 . The Secretary of State decided to authorise his detention. Each decision was made on 24 October 2013.

2. Mr A challenged the age assessment. He pointed to what Kent County Council said about it in correspondence. A vaccination record was then produced and Kent County Council decided to undertake a review of the assessment. The court gave Kent County Council until 14 March 2014 to notify the outcome of that review. Kent County Council did not do that and as a result permission to apply for judicial review against Kent County Council was granted, permission having been refused as against the Secretary of State a little earlier.

3. An assessment was then in fact undertaken, dated 24 March 2014, and that assessment reached the conclusion that Mr A was 18. There is no appearance from Mr A today and no representation. Documentation that has been supplied to the court on behalf of Kent County Council and including correspondence from the former solicitors (or potentially present solicitors) of Mr A indicates that an attendance and representation today is unlikely. The solicitors are without instructions and are seeking or have sought to come off the record.

4. In the circumstances, and having myself read the assessment of 24 March 2014, the right course is to dismiss this matter as against Kent County Council. I formally discharge the Secretary of State as a party to the claim, as the Secretary of State has invited in correspondence.

5. Does that deal with everything?

6. MR PAYNE: My Lord, there may be one matter which I should have raised which you might wish to include in your judgment, which is that yesterday I asked those instructing me to confirm with the Home Office whether or not the claimant was still at the address that he has always been at throughout these proceedings or whether he has absconded and the Home Office confirmed, as of yesterday, that he was still reporting and still at the address where we have been sending letters, so in terms of his knowledge of this hearing, you may wish to refer to that and I apologise for not mentioning it earlier.

7. The second point is costs, my Lord. We are making an applica