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.
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7404 1424 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms Stephanie Harrison (instructed by Bhatt Murphy, Solicitors) for the Claimant Ms Jenni Richards (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant Mr Anthony Arlidge QC (instructed by The Chief Crown Prosecutor, Essex Crown Prosecution Service) for the Interested Party Hearing dates: 29 and 30 January 2009 Further written submissions: 2, 3, 5 and 12 February 2009, and 24 and 28 April 2009 ____________________
There is no evidence about whether HBH's physical appearance was in fact regarded as significant, and the letter almost certainly referred to his physical appearance only because, as we shall see, the methodology used at the time to assess whether someone was a minor or not focused on their physical appearance. In view of the assessment that he was at least 18 years old, some subsequent documents gave him a notional date of birth of 1 January 1987.
And following HBH's plea of guilty, and his committal in custody to Chelmsford Crown Court for sentence, the warrant of commitment completed by the clerk of the court recorded that, although HBH had given his date of birth as 30 April 1988, he had been "deemed" by the court to be "over 18". That exercise to determine HBH's true age was presumably carried out pursuant to section 99(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which provides (so far as is material):
We do not know the nature of the enquiry conducted by the magistrates' court into HBH's age, or what evidence, if any, it took on the topic, but the court may have been given the information which appears in the police file on HBH's prosecution, namely that Stansted was "an avenue for organised gang masters to facilitate entry of Chinese nationals", and that 17 was "an age that is now cherry picked by the crime network in an attempt to evade prosecution through age".
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.