P v Worcestershire County Council  UKUT 120 (AAC)
The case related the naming of a mainstream academy for a child with a Statement of SEN, and the First Tier Tribunal's subsequent determination that the child needed 25 hours of teaching assistant support if he attended the mainstream school proposed by the LA without taking into consideration the possible costs of this provision. The Upper Tribunal found that in not taking these costs into consideration, the First Tier Tribunal had erred in law. The appellant was represented by Kate Harvey, Head of Education Law at CCLC
SM & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 1144 (Admin)
The Home Office policy on discretionary leave to remain, which was in force at the time the decisions in question were made, was found to be unlawful as it failed to consider the welfare and best interests of the child before deciding the period of time for which leave to remain should be granted. The High Court recognised that successive grants of short periods of leave to remain can leave children in limbo and may, therefore, be contrary to their welfare. CCLC intervened in this case.
HC (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor  EWHC 982 (Admin)
The claimant challenged the position under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its Codes of Practice of treating 17-year-olds as adults rather than children, denying them the right to contact their parents when arrested or to have an appropriate adult present when questioned by the police. The failure to treat 17-year-olds as children was held to be inconsistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. CCLC intervened in this case.
R (EAT) v LB Newham  EWHC 344 (Admin)
The local authority in this case decided to treat the claimant’s mother as an asylum seeker and contended that it was thereby prohibited from providing support by s122 (5) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The claimant child suffered from sickle cell anaemia. The administrative court, in allowing the claimant’s judicial review claim, held that the mother had made no claim for asylum and that there had been no reasonable grounds for believing that such a claim had been made. The case established that local authorities must not be unduly misled by the fact that the UKBA, as it often does, considers applications for leave to remain on Article 3 grounds that have not in fact been advanced by the claimant themselves. CCLC acted for the Claimant.