R (ML) v Youth Justice Board [2013 EWHC 3083 (Admin) (Irwin J): The Claimant challenged the decision of the Youth Justice Board ('YJB') to transfer him from a secure training centre to a young offender institution. The Claimant, 17, had a troubled background and was of limited intelligence. A youth court directed that he should be deemed vulnerable within the meaning of section 23(5A), Children and Young Persons Act 1969. He had been offending since the age of 13, was admitted to a secure training centre in October 2012. There were incidents there of him bullying and assaulting other youths and members of staff culminating in a request in February 2013 that he be transferred to a YOI. Transfer took place in March 2013. He argued that the decision to transfer was procedurally unfair, with no warning given to him, his mother, his legal representative or his social worker. Further the decision failed to properly take account of his best interests and therefore was a breach of his rights under article 8, ECHR. The Court granted his application finding that the transfer decision was procedurally unfair but ultimately his behaviour at the secure training centre meant that the substantive decision to transfer was a proportionate one under article 8, ECHR. Click here for judgment.
R (Nfuni) v Solihull MBC  EWHC 3155 (Admin) (HHJ David Clarke): The Court held that the local authority was entitled to consider the Claimant's uncertain immigration status as a failed asylum seeker (with an outstanding challenge to refusal of a fresh claim) to have no educational needs because she cannot draw benefit from education with uncertainty in her immigration status and thus the local authority was correct to assert that no duty was extant under section 23C(4)(b), Children Act 1989 to provide her with assistance to the extent that her welfare and educational needs require post-21. This followed from the comment of Stanley Burnton LJ in R (Kebede) v Newcasttle CC  EWCA Civ 960 (paragraph 20) that immigration status is manifestly relevant to determining educational needs. Judgment is not available from available free online resources but can be sought via this website (email@example.com). Shu Shin Luh represented the Claimant. The Claimant is applying for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.