SS, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

SS, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

The Claimant's detention was unlawful as it conflicted with Article 28.1 and/or 28.2 of Dublin III, which requires a significant risk of absconding based on objective criteria defined by law. No such criteria existed at the time of detention, rendering it unlawful. The Claimant was not a child when detained or assessed by the County Council, based on the balance of probabilities and material inconsistencies in his evidence.

Parties
Claimant: SS; First Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Defendant: Oxfordshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed
Legal Topics
Detention Under Dublin III, Age Assessment, Asylum Procedures, Direct Effect of EU Regulations, Children Act 1989, Judicial Review Remedies
Immigration Law Administrative Law European Union Law Child Welfare Law Detention Under Dublin III Age Assessment Asylum Procedures Direct Effect of EU Regulations +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SS

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Defendant

Oxfordshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's detention was unlawful under Article 28 of Dublin III
  2. 2 Whether Oxfordshire County Council's age assessments were lawful and accurate
  3. 3 Whether Article 28 of Dublin III has direct effect and confers enforceable rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's detention was unlawful as it conflicted with Article 28.1 and/or 28.2 of Dublin III, which requires a significant risk of absconding based on objective criteria defined by law. No such criteria existed at the time of detention, rendering it unlawful. The Claimant was not a child when detained or assessed by the County Council, based on the balance of probabilities and material inconsistencies in his evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Claimant's detention was unlawful under Article 28 of Dublin III
  • No declaration that the Claimant was a child at the relevant times