Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
AI, R (On the Application Of) v West Berkshire Council
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, a Sudanese national, arrived in the United Kingdom in October 2021 and claimed asylum based on threats to his safety in Darfur. Upon arrival, the Home Office assigned him a date of birth of 20 April 1998, placing him in adult accommodation. The Appellant disputed this, claiming a birthdate of 4 August 2004, which would have made him a child under 18 at the relevant time. The Respondent, West Berkshire Council, conducted an age assessment over five meetings in late 2021, concluding the Appellant was likely aged 20-24, adopting the Home Office's assigned date of birth. The Appellant initiated judicial review proceedings challenging the age assessment, which were transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ("UT"). The UT Judge refused the Appellant's claim and declared the Appellant to be an adult with the date of birth 20 April 1998. Permission to appeal was granted, with consideration given to whether the appeal was academic given the Appellant's current age.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Upper Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for accepting the age assessment made by the Respondent adopting the Home Office assigned date of birth.
- Whether the UT was required to give separate reasons for accepting the Appellant was an adult and for accepting the specific date of birth assigned by the Home Office.
- Whether the appeal had become academic given the Appellant's current age and the continuing impact of the UT's declaration of date of birth.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The UT gave detailed reasons for rejecting the Appellant's credibility but failed to provide adequate reasons for accepting the Respondent's assigned date of birth.
- The UT was not limited to choosing between the Appellant's claimed date and the Respondent's date, and separate reasons were required for accepting the specific date of birth of 20 April 1998.
- Relied on case law establishing that age assessment can involve a range and that courts must determine the actual date of birth if the claimant is found to be a child.
- Argued that the lack of reasons for the specific date of birth undermines the fairness and transparency of the decision.
Respondent's Arguments
- Accepted that the UT's declaration could continue to affect the Appellant but did not invite dismissal of that part of the appeal on grounds of academicity.
- Contended that the UT's reasons, read fairly as a whole, were adequate for the findings made.
- Emphasized that the case was presented in a binary manner before the UT, focusing on whether the Appellant was a child or adult, not on determining an alternative date of birth.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R (A) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8 |
Determination of whether a person is a child is a precedent or jurisdictional fact for the court or tribunal to decide. |
The Judge applied this principle to direct himself that the UT must make its own determination on age, not merely review the Respondent's decision. |
| R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590 |
The court's task in age assessment is inquisitorial without a burden of proof. |
The Judge reminded himself to adopt a sympathetic assessment of evidence without imposing a burden on the Appellant. |
| R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin) |
Standards for compliance in age assessments by local authorities. |
The Judge found the Respondent's assessment was not fully Merton compliant and thus gave it limited weight. |
| MC v Liverpool City Council [2010] EWHC 2211 (Admin) |
Age can fall within a range; courts must consider more than binary alternatives. |
Appellant relied on this to argue the UT should have given reasons for the specific date of birth. |
| R (F and Ors) v London Borough of Lewisham [2009] EWHC 3542 (Admin) |
If a person is found to be a child, the court must determine their actual age or date of birth. |
Considered in context; the court noted this applies only if the claimant is found to be a child. |
| Re V (A Child) (Inadequate reasons for findings of fact) [2015] EWCA Civ 274 |
Requirement for courts to provide reasons so parties understand why they lost. |
The Court applied this to assess whether the UT's reasons were sufficiently clear and adequate. |
| English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605 |
General duty of judges to give reasons for decisions for fairness and transparency. |
The Court relied on this authority to evaluate the adequacy of the UT's reasoning. |
| R (H) v Ashworth Special Hospital Authority [2002] EWCA Civ 923 |
Reasons are assessed by reference to the informed audience, including parties and appellate courts. |
The Court considered this when assessing the adequacy of reasons given by the UT. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court focused on whether the UT provided adequate reasons for accepting the Respondent's age assessment, specifically the assigned date of birth. The Court emphasized that the duty to give reasons is to ensure fairness and enable the losing party to understand why they lost, as well as to facilitate appellate review. The judgment must be read fairly and as a whole, not in isolated passages.
The Court noted that the case before the UT was presented as a binary issue: either accept the Appellant's claimed date of birth or the Respondent's. Although the UT could have found a different date, it was not obliged to do so. The Court found no material distinction between the questions of whether the Appellant was an adult and what his exact date of birth was, given the evidence presented.
The UT Judge found the Appellant's evidence to be unreliable and deliberately misleading regarding his age and related facts. Despite some acknowledged flaws in the Respondent's assessment, the UT had additional evidence, including the Appellant's schooling history, supporting the conclusion that he was an adult. The Court concluded that the reasons given by the UT were sufficiently adequate in the context of the case and the arguments presented.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The Court upheld the UT's decision that the Appellant was an adult at the relevant time with the date of birth 20 April 1998. The Court found the UT's reasons for this conclusion to be adequate. The direct effect is that the Appellant’s date of birth as determined by the UT remains binding between the parties, and no new precedent altering the approach to age assessments or the requirement for reasons was established. The decision confirms that in cases presented on a binary basis, the UT is not required to find an alternative date of birth beyond those advanced by the parties.
Click here to read the full judgment