Binomugisha v London Borough of Southwark, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 18, 2006, [2006] EWHC 2254 (Admin)
Linked as:
Extract
Binomugisha v London Borough of Southwark, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 18, 2006, [2006] EWHC 2254 (Admin)
Case No: CO/1815/2006
Neutral Citation [2006] EWCH 2254 (Admin)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEENS BENCH DIVISIONADMINISTRATIVE COURTRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLMonday 18th September 2006Before :Andrew Nicol QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment ofWordWave International LtdA Merrill Communications Company190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7831 8838Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Martin Westgate (instructed by Ole Hansen and Partners, solicitors) for the ?the Claimant???Hilton Harrop-Griffiths (instructed by Southwark Legal Services) for the Defendant- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentAndrew Nicol QC : 1. The principal issue in this case is whether the London Borough of Southwark has erred in law in its decision to cease providing support under Children Act 1989 s.23C or s.24A to Gordon Binomugisha, the Claimant. There are also issues as to whether Southwark is obliged to continue to provide the Claimant with a personal adviser and a `pathway plan' also pursuant to the Children Act.The facts2. The Claimant is from Uganda. He was born on 6th December 1986. At one time this was disputed by the Home Office, but an Immigration Adjudicator has found this date to be correct. It means that he is now 19. The Adjudicator also accepted the essential facts of the Claimant's account of his life in Uganda. His mother died many years ago. His father owned a construction firm and dealt in medical drugs. The Claimant was at a boarding school in Uganda, but in April 2002 he and his father were together. They were pounced on by soldiers. The Claimant was shot in the leg while attempting to run away and his father was also shot. The Claimant met a friend of his father's who helped both him and his father (who was badly bleeding from gunshot wounds) to get to a hospital. The Claimant recovered, but his father died a few days later.3. The friend of the Claimant's father then realised the father's estate. He told the Claimant that he would not be safe in Uganda (he suspected that the Claimant's father had been selling medical supplies to the rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army) and the two of them travelled to England. The Claimant and his father's friend arrived here on 1st October 2002. The Claimant apparently entered on a false passport and so is an illegal entrant for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971. He would then have been 15. The Claimant had expected to go to school in the UK, but nothing happened. In March 2003, his father's friend gave him £200 and then disappeared. He spent a few months with some Ugandans whom he had met at a Christmas party. He did odd jobs to support himself, but otherwise was dependent on the support of his friends. In October 2003 he was stopped by the police at Peckham Station. He then claimed asylum.4. In November 2003, the Claimant was referred to Southwark by the Refugee Council as a child in need. He was assessed and from about 25th November 2003, he was treated by Southwark as a child who was to be accommodated under s.20 of Children Act 1989.5. On 9th December 2003, his asylum claim was refused by the Home Office. His appeals based on the Refugee Convention and Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were dismissed by the Adjudicator on 2nd March 2004. The Refugee Convention and Article 3 claims failed because there was no real risk that the Claimant would be subjected to persecution or other ill-treatment by the Lord's Resistance Army or from the authorities.6. The Article 8 claim was based on the disruption which the Claimant's private and family life would suffer if he was removed from the UK. The Adjudicator said that this claim was `more problematical' and continued,`Such family life as [the Claimant] may have in the UK is sparse and only recently discovered. It has not featured in his life to any significant extent. He seems to have no relatives in Uganda (but may have a brother who would ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
