Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MISS SONALI NAIK QC, MISS BRYONY POYNOR & MISS MIRANDA BUTLER (instructed by DUNCAN LEWIS SOLICITORS for the Claimant MR DAVID MANKNELL (instructed by THE GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 29 February 2018, 1 & 2 March 2018 (written submissions: 12 and 23 October and 2 November 2018) ____________________
Mr Cook also noted that, although Duncan Lewis said ZS was very vulnerable and had suicidal tendencies, he was in the care of the French authorities. To the extent they were failing, as seemed to be implied, adequately to care for ZS, he had recourse to the French courts.
The letter also criticised the discussions which Duncan Lewis had been having with Brighton and Hove Council about whether they could accommodate ZS. It was for the Secretary of State to determine who would be transferred to the UK and where they would be placed. It was highly inappropriate for Duncan Lewis to have engaged in discussions with local authorities in relation to specific clients "given your limited awareness of the wider issues the SSHD is required to discuss and agree with local authorities. You should desist from doing this immediately."
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.