There is an ‘important difference’ between normal judicial review claims and those involving an age assessment, the Court of Appeal has ruled. The case concerned an Ethiopian national - named as ‘UYR’ - who arrived in England on 17 March in the back of a lorry and told police he was 15. But when he approached Derby City Council for assistance, it concluded following an age assessment that he was clearly an adult, the court heard.

In a judicial review claim brought by UYR, Karen Ridge, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, granted interim relief against Derby City Council, ordering it to treat the claimant as a child pending the conclusion of the proceedings and provide him with accommodation, care and support.

On appeal, the council argued there was a high threshold in judicial review claims, requiring a ‘strong prima facie case’ before a court could grant interim relief.

Lord Justice Zacaroli, delivering the unanimous judgment, said that even if there is a higher threshold in judicial review cases generally - which he said was unnecessary to decide on this appeal - there are ‘sound reasons in principle why it does not apply in age assessment cases’.

‘There is an important difference, so far as the court’s role is concerned, between a judicial review claim in an age assessment case and other judicial review claims’, Zacaroli said. ‘In most cases where judicial review is sought of a public authority’s decision, the court will give considerable deference to that decision. The public authority remains the decision-maker and the scope for intervention by the court is limited to identifying irrationality, or errors of law or procedure. 

‘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, where it is for the court to reach its own decision as to the age of the claimant.’

But the court allowed the appeal on another ground, which was that the judge should not have ordered interim relief against Derby council because the claimant is already being ‘adequately accommodated’ by Manchester City Council.