JR52842019

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a national of Eritrea, sought judicial review of the Respondent's decision dated 10 August 2019, which concluded an age assessment determining the Applicant to be 20 years old with an estimated date of birth of 21 February 1998. The Applicant disputed this, claiming a birthdate of 21 October 2001, asserting that he was a minor upon arrival in the United Kingdom on 16 June 2018. The Applicant's journey included leaving Eritrea at age 4, residing in Ethiopia, Sudan, Libya (where his mother died and he suffered ill-treatment), Italy (surviving a capsized boat), Germany, Belgium, and finally the UK.

Following his arrival, the Applicant claimed asylum and was initially accepted as a minor by UK authorities and social services. However, the Respondent carried out an age assessment starting July 2018, concluding in January 2019 that the Applicant was an adult based largely on information from German authorities indicating a different identity and older age. The Applicant's support under the Children Act 1989 ceased accordingly.

The judicial review challenged the age assessment's validity, with the Tribunal conducting a full evidential hearing including oral testimony from the Applicant, his advocate, and expert witnesses, and considering documentary evidence from multiple sources.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the correct age and date of birth of the Applicant, given the dispute between the Applicant's claim and the Respondent's age assessment?
2. Whether the Respondent's age assessment process complied with relevant legal standards and guidance.
3. How to assess the credibility of conflicting evidence regarding identity and age in the context of age dispute cases under the Children Act 1989.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant consistently claimed a birthdate of 21 October 2001 and maintained he was a minor upon arrival in the UK.
• The Applicant denied the accuracy of the age assessment, highlighting procedural deficiencies such as lack of contemporaneous notes, inadequate interpreter support, and distress caused during interviews.
• The Applicant disputed the identity and age attributed to him by German authorities, asserting that the identity "AG" with birthdate 21 February 1998 was incorrectly assigned to him.
• The Applicant's mental health issues, including complex PTSD, impacted his ability to recall events clearly during the assessment.
• The Applicant relied on supporting evidence from medical experts and his advocate, who attested to his age and vulnerability.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent relied on the age assessment conducted by two social workers, supported by evidence from German authorities indicating the Applicant was registered as "AG," born in 1998, and an Ethiopian national.
• The Respondent submitted additional evidence including witness statements, social media material, and German court documents to support the conclusion that the Applicant was over 18.
• The Respondent contended that the age assessment was conducted professionally and that discrepancies in the Applicant's accounts undermined his credibility.
• It was argued that the Applicant's presentation and behaviour during the age assessment interviews were consistent with an adult rather than a child.
• The Respondent challenged the reliability of the Applicant's evidence and the weight to be given to his advocate and medical expert.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R (A) v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8	Confirmed that determining whether a person is a child is a question of fact with a right or wrong answer, even if difficult.	The court applied this principle to affirm its role in making an independent factual determination of the Applicant's age.
R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EHHC 1689	Guidance on approach to age assessment: informal determination avoiding judicialisation, no onus of proof on the applicant, and no predisposition to assume age.	The court followed this guidance emphasizing fairness and minimum standards in assessing age without assigning burden of proof.
R (W) v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWHC 1130	The Tribunal is not confined to choosing between parties' positions and can make its own factual inquiry.	The court conducted an inquisitorial inquiry, weighing all evidence to reach its own conclusion on age.
R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590	Clarification that the Tribunal's inquiry under the Children Act 1989 is inquisitorial.	The court applied this approach in thoroughly examining evidence and submissions to determine the Applicant's age.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a comprehensive review of all evidence, including witness statements, oral testimony, documentary material, and expert reports. It critically assessed the age assessment carried out by the Respondent's social workers, finding it deficient due to absence of contemporaneous notes, inconsistent recording, lack of adherence to guidance, and failure to consider the Applicant's mental health and trauma.

The court gave significant weight to the medical evidence from the Applicant's family therapist, who diagnosed complex PTSD and explained how trauma affected the Applicant's recall and behaviour. The court also found the advocate's evidence credible, noting the advocate's extensive and regular contact with the Applicant and his consistent observations supporting the Applicant's claimed age.

The court examined the conflicting evidence from German authorities and social media but found the Respondent's reliance on these insufficient to displace the Applicant's credible account, especially given discrepancies in identity and the lack of verification with Home Office records. The court noted the Respondent's inconsistent position on the Applicant's nationality and identity during proceedings.

Overall, the court concluded that the Applicant's evidence was consistent, credible, and supported by expert medical and advocate testimony, whereas the Respondent's evidence was undermined by procedural and evidential weaknesses. The court applied the balance of probabilities standard and found the Applicant's claimed age more likely to be correct.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court determined that the Applicant's date of birth is 21 October 2001 and that he is currently aged 18.

Implications: As the Applicant was found to be a minor at the relevant time, the Respondent's decision to cease support under the Children Act 1989 was incorrect. The Applicant was entirely successful in the judicial review, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant's reasonable costs. The decision directly affects the Applicant's entitlement to support and services as a child but does not establish new legal precedent beyond the application of established principles to the facts.