Establishing Judicial Authority in Age Assessment: Abdullah v Aberdeenshire Council [2024]: Scottish Court of Session

Introduction

In the landmark case of Mohammed Ismael Suliman Abdullah v Aberdeenshire Council ([2024] ScotCS CSOH_8), the Scottish Court of Session addressed critical issues surrounding the judicial review of age assessments conducted by local authorities. Abdullah, a claimant from Sudan, contested the age assessment performed by Aberdeenshire Council, which initially treated him as a minor but later reassessed him as an adult based on purported evidence. The core dispute centered on the reliability and legality of the age assessment process, procedural fairness, and the court's jurisdiction in determining factual matters such as age.

The parties involved included Abdullah as the petitioner, Aberdeenshire Council as the respondent, and various legal representatives and consultants engaged to critique and reassess the original age determination. The case delves into the complexities of age assessment in the context of immigration and youth justice, challenging the methodologies and reasoning employed by social workers and the implications of these assessments on legal rights and obligations.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court, presided over by Lord Sandison, ultimately dismissed Abdullah's petition for judicial review, deeming it incompetent. The judgment critically examined the procedures followed during Abdullah's age assessment, highlighting significant deficiencies in the assessors' reliance on unreliable sources and potential unconscious bias due to prior knowledge of Abdullah's criminal charges. Despite these shortcomings, the Court determined that the existing legal framework and procedural boundaries did not permit the Court to intervene directly in the substantive determination of age, reaffirming the limits of judicial review in such factual determinations.

Key findings included the irrationality of the assessors' conclusions due to their flawed reliance on non-scientific sources, lack of adequate reasoning, and procedural unfairness stemming from potential bias. However, the Court maintained that declaratory actions, rather than judicial reviews, are the appropriate legal avenue for disputing age assessments, emphasizing that the Court should not overstep its supervisory role by engaging in merits-based reviews of factual determinations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shaped the Court’s approach to age assessments and judicial review:

AB v Kent County Council [2020]: Established principles for age assessments, emphasizing the need for decisions to be based on specific facts and the importance of giving benefit of doubt to asylum-seeking children.
R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003]: Highlighted the reliability of professionally conducted age assessments and set standards for their evaluation.
Jasim v Scottish Ministers [2022]: Discussed the intensity of judicial scrutiny based on the expertise of decision-makers.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]: Introduced the concept of "Wednesbury unreasonableness," where a decision is so irrational that no reasonable authority could have made it.
O'Reilly v Mackman [1983]: Underlined the necessity of impartiality in decision-making processes to uphold natural justice.
R(A) v Croydon London Borough Council [2009]: Defined age determination as a "precedent fact" subject to court decision, influencing the understanding of judicial jurisdiction over age disputes.
L v Angus Council [2011]: Clarified the incapacity of courts to override local authority decisions based solely on factual disputes in Scotland.

These precedents collectively informed the Court's stance on the limitations of judicial review in factual determinations and reinforced the procedural boundaries within which local authorities operate.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on distinguishing between supervisory and merits review in judicial contexts. While acknowledging the irrationalities in the original age assessment—such as reliance on unreliable sources and potential bias—the Court maintained that its supervisory role does not extend to re-evaluating factual determinations made by specialized bodies. The decision emphasized that:

Judicial review should focus on the legality and procedural correctness of decisions, not their substantive correctness.
Age determination is an objective factual matter, and the Court lacks the jurisdiction to engage in merits-based assessments of such facts.
Declaratory actions are the appropriate legal mechanism for disputing age assessments, allowing the Court to issue definitive declarations without overstepping into the decision-making processes of local authorities.
The potential for judicial overreach exists if courts attempt to re-assess factual determinations, undermining the specialized functions of local authorities and established assessment protocols.

Furthermore, the Court criticized the assessors' methodologies, highlighting the use of non-authoritative sources and failure to account for cultural and individual variances in physical and behavioral assessments. However, these critiques did not substantially alter the Court's stance on jurisdictional limits, reinforcing the principle that courts should refrain from engaging in subject-matter expertise typically reserved for specialized professionals.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving age assessments and the scope of judicial review in Scotland:

Clarification of Judicial Jurisdiction: Reinforces the boundary between supervisory and merits review, limiting courts from engaging in factual disputes best handled by specialized bodies.
Emphasis on Declaratory Actions: Encourages applicants to pursue declaratory judgments rather than judicial reviews when seeking definitive conclusions on factual matters like age.
Quality Standards for Age Assessments: Implicitly demands higher standards and greater accountability in how local authorities conduct age assessments, potentially driving reforms in assessment methodologies.
Limitations on Judicial Intervention: Affirms that even flawed assessments, unless procedurally illegal, may not warrant judicial interference, thereby preserving the functional autonomy of local authorities.
Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice: Highlights the necessity for impartiality and rigorous reasoning in administrative decisions, influencing future administrative practices.

Overall, the judgment delineates clear procedural pathways for challenging age assessments and reinforces the impersonal nature of judicial oversight in factual determinations, promoting a separation of judicial and administrative functions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment encompasses several intricate legal concepts that warrant clarification for better understanding:

Judicial Review: A process by which courts examine the legality of decisions or actions made by public bodies. Importantly, it focuses on procedural correctness rather than re-evaluating the factual basis of decisions.
Supervisory vs. Merits Review: Supervisory review assesses whether legal procedures were followed correctly, while merits review involves assessing the substance or correctness of the decision itself.
Declaratory Action: A legal procedure allowing an individual to seek a court declaration on the status or facts of a matter, such as establishing one's legal age, without challenging the process that led to the existing determination.
Wednesbury Unreasonableness: A standard of review where a decision is so irrational that no reasonable authority would have made it, justifying its overturning by the court.
Natural Justice: Legal principles ensuring fair decision-making processes, including impartiality and the right to be heard.
Academic Petition: A legal petition deemed disconnected from practical relevance or immediate legal consequences, leading to its dismissal.

Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the Court's rationale in limiting judicial intervention to ensuring procedural integrity rather than re-assessing substantive factual determinations like age.

Conclusion

The Abdullah v Aberdeenshire Council [2024] judgment underscores the boundaries of judicial review in Scotland, particularly concerning factual determinations made by administrative bodies. By dismissing Abdullah's petition as incompetent, the Court affirmed its role in overseeing procedural legality without encroaching upon specialized factual assessments. This decision emphasizes the importance of appropriate legal mechanisms, such as declaratory actions, for disputing factual matters and reinforces the necessity for administrative bodies to adhere to rigorous, unbiased assessment standards. Consequently, the judgment serves as a pivotal reference point in delineating judicial functions and promoting fairness and accountability within administrative procedures related to age assessments.

Establishing Judicial Authority in Age Assessment: Abdullah v Aberdeenshire Council [2024]