Asylum Seekers: Council placing migrants in hotel 'unlawful' says judge

A London council acted unlawfully when placing three unaccompanied asylum-seekers in a hotel pending assessments of their age, a High Court judge has concluded.

The three asylum-seekers argued that Brent Council had not met obligations under legislation governing the care of children.

Mr Justice Poole has ruled in their favour.

The judge has ruled that the council acted unlawfully when deciding not to accommodate the three asylum-seekers under a relevant section of the 1989 Children Act in the late summer of 2020.

He said the council acted unreasonably, and breached a duty, by “declining to provide accommodation” pending the outcome of age assessments.

The judge, who is based in London, outlined his reasoning in a written ruling published on Monday after considering arguments at a High Court hearing earlier this month.

He said there was no evidence that “putative children” at the hotel were “safeguarded against risk from adult strangers” and no evidence that any account was taken of promoting the three asylum-seekers’ welfare.

Council bosses had disputed the asylum-seekers’ claims.

They said they had been exercising an “evaluative judgment”.

Lawyers representing the council told the judge that the three asylum-seekers had been provided with appropriate accommodation and said their “physical appearance and demeanour” were strongly suggestive of an “adult male of at least 25 years old”.

Mr Justice Poole said each of the three had now been “ age assessed” and appropriate accommodation provided.

One had ultimately been assessed as being 16 when placed in the hotel, the others had been assessed as being in their mid-20s, he said.

“It was … unreasonable for the defendant local authority to determine that it did not appear to it that these three claimants required accommodation, and the local authority was in breach of its duty under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 by declining to provide accommodation to these three claimants pending the outcome of their age assessments,” said the judge.

“The defendant’s decisions in these three cases not to accommodate the claimants under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 were unlawful.”

He did not name the asylum-seekers.