R (A) v Croydon LBC
[2009] LGR 24 at [75] which I do not need to repeat here given the concession made by the Council at the beginning of the hearing. Lady Hale also made some observations at [32] which I will return to later in this judgment:“We have heard no submissions from the other parties on the circumstances in which, once triggered, the duty under section 20(1) might come to an end. Presumably, it will do so if the criteria are no longer met—if the child is no longer “in need”, or his parents or carers are no longer prevented from providing him with suitable accommodation or care, or if a competent child no longer wishes to be accommodated under that section. But the whole purpose of the leaving care provisions was to ensure that older children who were without family support were given just the sort of help with moving into independent living that children normally expect from their families. Authorities should therefore be slow to conclude that a child was no longer “in need” because he did not need that help or because it could be provided in other ways.”20.A local authority must accommodate a child to whom s. 20 applies and the application of the criteria are for the judgment of the Council though, once they have been found to apply, their application is not a matter of discretion. In G at [24] Lady Hale considered the House of Lords’ decision in
- Hearing date: 1 May 2018
- Introduction
- Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Duty of candour
- R (Quark Fishing Limited) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
- R. (Midcounties Co-operative Ltd) v Forest of Dean DC
- Relevant law
- Provision of accommodation for children: general
- local authority in relation to children looked after by them.
- R. (G) v Southwark LBC
- R (A) v Croydon LBC
- R (G) v Barnet LBC
- R (O) v London Borough of Lambeth
- Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children
- R (D) v Southwark LBC
- GE (Eritrea
- R(Birara) v Hounslow LBC
- R (M) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC
- Facts
- ACCOMMODATION and HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE HOME
- McDonald v RBKC
- The grounds of challenge
- Ground 2
- G v Southwark
- R. (Collins) v Knowsley MBC
- D v. Southwark
- Southwark
- GE (Eritrea)
- Ground 3
- Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
- R (BC) v Birmingham CC
