council wasteful spending

How can it be disgraceful that LBC bears the costs of this case that it lost? Who or what organisation do you suggest should bear the cost instead of LBC ?

It's a very long judgement easybee, in which the judge looks forensically at the huge amount of evidence available. Far beyond just weight and height detail you will be able to read pages and pages of health, psychiatric, social worker, case worker, expert evidence etc etc. Credibility and truthfulness of the Sudanese refugee and other parties is also carefully weighed up by the presiding judge.

Lawyers for both LBC and representing the Sudanese refugee evidently must rightly be paid, have not acted wrongly and that is not disgraceful in any way. The case is not about human rights per se it is merely about the accuracy of the refugee's age assessment.

Yes Luton residents, by way of council tax will bear the cost of the case and any other case that LBC loses, which could have been avoided in this case by a much more accurate and carefully considered age assessment process by LBC in the first instance.

What is disgraceful is that Luton Borough Council has been ordered to pay tens of thousands of pounds *(£40,000 in legal fees for the Sudanese migrant wrongly assessed as being 25 years old, not 17 years.

Once again, Human Rights Lawyers profit and Luton taxpayers will foot the bill.

I have opened the link but have not read the account closely; I have not so far but noticed any account of a close physical examination other than one to establish weight and height. Most of the interviews seem to focus on history of the journey and mental health. I shall read it properly later.

Cossy

NotSpaghetti

The thing is, HowVeryDareYou2 if you are told you must pay "costs" that's what you have to do... whether £40 or £40,000 - obviously if they had exercised diligence in the first place they wouldn't be paying it!

I agree. This isn’t the council “wasting” money, it’s about the fact that the council were wrong and are now paying the price!!

Precisely.

NotSpaghetti

The thing is, HowVeryDareYou2 if you are told you must pay "costs" that's what you have to do... whether £40 or £40,000 - obviously if they had exercised diligence in the first place they wouldn't be paying it!

I agree. This isn’t the council “wasting” money, it’s about the fact that the council were wrong and are now paying the price!!

The thing is, HowVeryDareYou2 if you are told you must pay "costs" that's what you have to do... whether £40 or £40,000 - obviously if they had exercised diligence in the first place they wouldn't be paying it!

Perhaps the word "disgraceful" isn't the right one to use, but I think £40,000 costs to be paid by the council is excessive and unjust. I'm not commenting further.

Thank you for the link PaynesGrey which I have just read. It's a long but a well reasoned judgement and looks into all available evidence in forensic detail. .

The presiding judge disagreed with Luton Borough Council's age assessment, ie that they decided DD, a refugee from Sudan, was between the ages of 25-30 at time of assessment. The judge sets out clear reasons why. The judge instead found in favour of DD, the refugee from Sudan and accepted his claim that at the time he came to Britain and was age assessed by LBC he was under 18 and a child.

Luton BC lost their therefore must pay the defendant's legal costs- that principle is baked into the UK judicial system. That surely can not be deemed to be disgraceful?

The title of this post is "council wasteful spending" seemingly in relation to the £40,000 costs of this case. costs awarded by the judge against Luton Borough Council. The judge made clear that LBC could/should have made a more accurate and reasonable age assessment in the first place. LBC could have avoided the costs of judicial review by doing that.

It could be the case that the OP finds that LBC's inaccurate age assessment process was disgraceful? The presiding judge was much more measured and didn't use the word " disgraceful" but he was largely in agreement that LBC fell short.

The only other part of OP that could be contentious is LBC "must continue to support him", i.e. DD the refugee. Perhaps that is the issue the OP finds disgraceful? If so a bit more detail what support is specifically disgraceful from OP would help any further debate and discussion......

What’s disgraceful?

Are you criticising Luton Council for getting this wrong or the decision by Upper Tribunal Judge Neville in favour of DD?

The Tribunal proceedings are here:

tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/jr-2025-lon-000493

It is easier to read if you download the pdf.

There is substantial documentary and other evidence that DD was born in 2007.

And so it goes on.