R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590

Children in need are those requiring additional support due to risk, abuse, neglect, or disabilities. Local authorities have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to provide care and services to ensure their well-being and development.

Age assessment determines an individual’s chronological age, which is crucial for providing appropriate legal protections and services. It involves evaluating physical, psychological, and sometimes medical factors.

A Claimant may challenge a decision through judicial review if they believe it was unlawful or unfair, examining whether the decision-making process adhered to legal standards.

• The Claimant usually bears the burden of proving their age, providing evidence to support their claim of being under 18 for appropriate legal protections and services.

Part III of the Children Act 1989 sets out local authorities' duties to support and protect children in need, ensuring their safety and well-being through appropriate services and care.

CJ (“Claimant”), an Afghan national residing in Iran, entered the United Kingdom unlawfully and claimed to be 15 years old, asserting he was an unaccompanied minor entitled to protection under the Children Act 1989.

• Initially, he was placed into the care of the Cardiff City Council (“Defendant”) local authority, which subsequently conducted its age assessment. 

• The authority determined that the Claimant was over 18, citing various reasons:

  • He had repeatedly lied about his age during his journey to the UK

  • Submitted false identity and age documents

  • His account of travelling alone was inconsistent and improbable, which undermined his credibility. 

The Claimant sought judicial review of this assessment, arguing that the burden of proof should not have been on him.

The judge ruled that the Claimant had the burden to prove he was under 18 and had failed to meet this burden, thus favoring the local authority's assessment and dismissing the claim.

The Claimant subsequently appealed the decision.

Dismissing the appeal, that in cases concerning whether a Claimant was a child under the Children Act 1989, applying a legal burden of proof had been deemed incorrect.

• The High Court had exercised a supervisory role under the Act, and its approach had been inquisitorial rather than based on a formal burden of proof.

• It had not been the court’s role to determine if the local authority had proven the Claimant was an adult or if the Claimant had proven they were a child.

• Instead, the court had assessed, on a balance of probabilities, whether the Claimant was a child at the relevant time.

• Consequently, the judge had erred by imposing a burden of proof on the Claimant.

• However, despite this error, had the judge evaluated the probable age of the Claimant upon entry to the UK, the evidence would have led to the conclusion that the Claimant was over 18, thereby justifying the dismissal of the claim.

Per Curiam:

1. The court did not need to address whether a finding on a precedent fact, such as the Claimant’s age, was binding on subsequent proceedings.

   • However, where multiple powers and duties depended on age status, conflicting findings shouldn't have arisen in the same case.

2. The decision did not imply that the burden of proof was irrelevant in all cases where benefits were claimed under statutory provisions.

   • The application of the burden of proof depended on the specific terms of the statute conferring the power to act.

The case is a significant decision by the Court of Appeal addressing the application of the burden of proof in cases involving public authorities and statutory duties, specifically under the Children Act 1989.

• This case highlights key principles about the determination of precedent facts, such as age, which influence the exercise of statutory powers and duties.

In legal proceedings, the burden of proof traditionally lies with the party making a claim.

• This principle, known as "he who asserts must prove," requires that the Claimant must establish their case to the standard of the balance of probabilities.

• However, the Court of Appeal found that applying this traditional burden of proof was not always suitable in the context of public law, particularly when dealing with statutory duties related to the welfare of children.

The Court emphasized the inquisitorial nature of judicial review under public law.

• Rather than imposing a strict burden of proof on one party or another, the court's role is to assess whether a fact, such as the Claimant's age, meets the standard of the balance of probabilities.

• This approach allows the court to make an independent determination of facts essential to the legality of the public authority's actions or decisions.

For public authorities, this case clarifies that the court will not require proof of the Claimant’s status in the traditional sense but will instead weigh evidence to determine if the Claimant falls within the statutory definition relevant to the case.

• This approach aims to ensure that statutory duties are performed correctly, and that individuals’ rights are protected.

This case shows the importance of applying appropriate legal standards in public law cases, particularly when determining precedent facts like age under the Children Act 1989.

• It demonstrates a nuanced approach to burdens of proof, emphasizing the court’s role in making independent factual determinations to ensure fairness and adherence to statutory obligations.

• This decision reflects a broader principle in administrative law that public authorities must act within their legal boundaries and respect individuals’ rights, particularly in sensitive areas such as child welfare.