On 26 November 2009 the Supreme Court gave judgment in R (on the application of A) v LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON (Respondent) & (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (2) CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER  (Interveners) : R (on the application of M) v LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH (Respondent) & (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (2) CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER [2009] UKSC 8.

The appeal involved judicial review challenges by asylum seekers against decisions that they were adults and therefore not entitled to be accommodated as children by those authorities. The asylum seekers claimed to be under the age of 18. The local authorities determined that they were adults and refused to provide accommodation for them.

Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 provides: “(1) Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of — (a) there being no person who has parental responsibility for him...”

The Supreme Court held that the question of age was an objective fact subject, in the event of challenge, to determination by the court.

Those conclusions had made it unnecessary to reach any firm conclusions on arguments which had been presented as to whether article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights applied to decisions under section 20(1).

Nathalie Lieven QC appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Richard Drabble QC appeared for the Children’s Commissioner for England, intervening by written submissions.