Introduction

The case of Abdraman Ali Ahmat against Aberdeenshire Council ([2025] CSOH 15) is a pivotal decision rendered by the Scottish Court of Session's Outer House. The proceedings centered on a critical issue of age assessment, where the pursuer, Abdraman Ali Ahmat, sought a declaratory judgment affirming his date of birth as 10 November 2006. This determination was essential in establishing his eligibility for child-specific accommodations under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The primary contention arose from the defender, Aberdeenshire Council’s social workers, who conducted a brief age assessment concluding that Ahmat was over 18, thereby negating the council's duty to accommodate him as a child.

The case progressed from an initial judicial review petition to an ordinary action, highlighting procedural complexities in legal challenges against age assessments. The involvement of precedents such as Abdullah v Aberdeenshire Council and R (GE (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department underscores the evolving legal landscape surrounding age determination for asylum seekers and migrants.

Summary of the Judgment

Lady Carmichael delivered the opinion in this case, ultimately sustaining the defender's plea-in-law and granting a decree of absolvitor to Aberdeenshire Council. The court found that Ahmat's assertions regarding his date of birth lacked credibility and reliability. The evidence supporting his claim was predominantly self-reported, with inconsistencies and evasive responses undermining its validity. Notably, the defendant's social workers conducted a brief age assessment based mainly on Ahmat's physical appearance and demeanor, which the court deemed insufficient and not in line with best practices.

The judgment emphasized that the determination of a precedent fact—in this case, the claimant’s age—is integral to the court's supervisory jurisdiction under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Lady Carmichael clarified that such factual determinations do not constitute standalone judicial inquiries but are part of overseeing the lawful exercise of local authorities' powers.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that have shaped the legal approach to age assessment:

• Abdullah v Aberdeenshire Council [2024] CSOH 8: This case initially suggested holding preliminarily that the petition was incompetent, emphasizing procedural thresholds in judicial reviews related to age assessments.
• R (GE (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] 1 WLR 4123: Addressed the issue of individuals turning 18 during proceedings and the implications for their status under the Children Act 1989.
• R (B) v Merton London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin): Established the necessity for compliance with Merton criteria in age assessments, advocating for comprehensive and fair procedures.
• R (AB) v Kent County Council [2020] PTSR 746: Highlighted the unreliability of assessments based solely on physical appearance and demeanor.
• Kennedy v Cordia Services LLP [2016] UKSC 6: Discussed the challenges in distinguishing between evidence of fact and opinion in social workers' assessments.
• R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590: Clarified the burden of proof in age determination cases, asserting that the court, not the claimant, decides the factual question of age.

Legal Reasoning

Lady Carmichael meticulously dissected the roles and responsibilities under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. She underscored that determining an individual's age is a precedent fact critical to the exercise of legislative powers by local authorities. The court's role, therefore, is supervisory, ensuring that local authorities comply with legal standards in their decision-making processes.

The judgment dismantles the notion of the court having an "original" jurisdiction in such matters, aligning with the recognition that age determinations are integral to the lawful application of local authority powers. Lady Carmichael emphasized that while the court oversees the legality of these determinations, it does not engage in fact-finding independently of the local authority's decisions.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the procedural aspects, noting that the pursuer's initial petition for judicial review was reclassified as an ordinary action, given the substantive issue of age assessment was not academically moot but materially significant for future interactions between the pursuer and the local authority.

Impact

This judgment carries significant implications for future age assessment cases within Scotland and potentially across the UK:

• Strengthening Supervisory Jurisdiction: Clarifies the court's role in supervising local authority decisions, ensuring they adhere to legal standards without overstepping into independent fact-finding.
• Emphasis on Best Practices: Reinforces the necessity for thorough and standardized procedures in age assessments, aligning with Merton criteria and Scottish Government guidelines to ensure fairness and reliability.
• Burden of Proof Clarification: Affirms that courts decide on precedent facts like age based on the balance of probabilities, without assigning the burden of proof to either party, thereby streamlining judicial processes.
• Procedural Efficiency: May influence how similar cases are structured, encouraging the use of administrative processes over judicial reviews where appropriate, and shaping the training and conduct of social workers involved in age assessments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Precedent Fact

A precedent fact refers to an objective fact that needs to be established before a legal rule can be applied. In this case, whether Ahmat was a child under the law was a precedent fact determining the applicability of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

Supervisory Jurisdiction

Supervisory jurisdiction is the court's authority to oversee and ensure that public bodies, like local authorities, act within their legal powers and follow correct procedures. The court does not make decisions on the merits but ensures legality in the exercise of power.

Merton Criteria

The Merton criteria are a set of guidelines established in R (B) v Merton London Borough Council to assess whether individuals are minors or adults. These criteria emphasize comprehensive, fair, and unbiased procedures, requiring trained professionals to conduct age assessments.

Declarator

A declarator is a legal judgment that declares the rights of the parties without ordering any specific action. Ahmad sought a declaratory judgment affirming his age to establish his eligibility for child accommodations.

Conclusion

The judgment in Ahmat v Aberdeenshire Council serves as a cornerstone in delineating the boundaries of judicial oversight in age assessment cases. By affirming that age determination is a precedent fact integral to the exercise of local authorities' powers, Lady Carmichael's decision underscores the necessity for rigorous, evidence-based, and procedurally sound assessments. The ruling not only reinforces the importance of adhering to established best practices but also clarifies the court's role in supervising, rather than independently adjudicating, such critical determinations.

Moving forward, local authorities must ensure that their age assessment procedures align with legal standards and utilize trained professionals to avoid arbitrary or biased conclusions. This judgment will likely influence both administrative practices and future legal challenges, promoting greater accountability and fairness in the treatment of vulnerable individuals within the UK's immigration and social services framework.