Duy Bach Tai (FE/LA) for Judicial Review (Court of Session)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant seeks asylum in the United Kingdom and applied for accommodation under section 25(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, claiming to be a child. The Respondent conducted an age assessment on 28 March 2024, concluding that the Appellant was over 18 years of age and consequently refused accommodation. The Appellant challenges this age assessment by way of judicial review. The Respondent’s decision was communicated in a letter citing reliance on the ruling in Merton and based primarily on a visual assessment of appearance and demeanour without a full inquiry. Both parties agreed to rely on the social workers’ notes and report produced during the assessment. The court confirmed that judicial review was a competent procedure to challenge the age assessment and did not consider other case law on this point.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent’s decision to treat the Appellant as an adult based on a brief age assessment was lawful and supported by adequate reasons.
2. Whether the Respondent failed to take into account relevant factors, including the Appellant’s physical work history and traumatic experiences, in making the age assessment.
3. Whether the reasons provided by the Respondent were adequate and met the required standard of fairness and rationality.
4. Whether the Respondent’s reliance on appearance and demeanour without a full inquiry was consistent with legal principles established in Merton and other authorities.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The reasons given in the Respondent’s decision were inadequate because they failed to explain how certain relevant matters were considered or rejected.
• The Respondent did not properly account for the Appellant’s history of physical labour, which could explain a mature physique.
• The Respondent’s conclusion about the Appellant’s vague and lacking answers was irrational, especially given the traumatic experiences endured by the Appellant, such as threats and kidnapping.
• The Respondent failed to consider the impact of trauma on memory and recall, a factor supported by recent case law.
• The reasons were mere restatements of the legal test rather than substantive explanations, falling short of the standard required for decisions with significant consequences.

Respondent's Arguments

• The age assessment complied with the legal framework set out in Merton, which allows reliance on appearance and demeanour to avoid a prolonged inquiry where age is obvious.
• The decision was made by social workers who reasonably concluded the Appellant was significantly over 18, and the procedure is administrative, not judicial.
• The reasons in the decision letter, though brief, were legally adequate and could be supplemented by contemporaneous notes.
• The Appellant’s request for increasingly detailed reasons was misplaced, as it is always possible to ask for more detail but not always necessary.
• Affidavits from social workers, though ex post facto, confirmed that the Appellant’s narrative was considered but that physical appearance and demeanour justified the conclusion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R (B) v Merton London Borough Council [2003] 4 All ER 280	Establishes that in age assessments, a prolonged inquiry is not required if it is obvious a person is over or under 18; reliance on appearance and demeanour is permissible.	The court accepted that the Respondent properly applied this principle by relying on visual assessment and demeanour to conclude the Appellant was over 18 without a full inquiry.
Abdullah v Aberdeenshire Council 2024 SLT 143	Concerns the procedural competence of judicial review in age assessment challenges.	The court noted it did not need to consider this case as the Respondent accepted judicial review was competent for the challenge.
PW v KM [2024] CSOH 85	Recognition that trauma can affect memory and recall, relevant in assessing credibility and evidence.	The Appellant relied on this case to argue the Respondent should have considered trauma’s impact; the court found no requirement for explicit reasoning on this point in the decision letter.
R v Birmingham City Council ex p B [1999] ELR 305	Sets out standards for adequacy of reasons in administrative decisions, emphasizing the need to address the crucial question.	The court distinguished this case, noting that unlike in ex p B, the Respondent here did address the crucial question (age) and gave reasons relating to appearance and demeanour.
HLW Petitioner [2012] CSOH 159	Discusses the extent of reasons required in administrative decisions, with consideration of the decision's importance to the individual.	The court held this case did not support the Appellant’s argument for more detailed reasons, emphasizing context-dependent reasonableness.
Wordie Property Co Limited v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984 SLT 345	Requires reasons sufficient to inform an informed reader of the decision, its basis, and views on principal matters.	The court applied this test to find the Respondent’s reasons adequate despite their brevity.
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014	Failure to carry out reasonable inquiries may render a decision unlawful.	The court found no failure in this case to carry out reasonable inquiries, distinguishing it from the present facts.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the brevity of the Respondent’s reasons but held they were sufficient under administrative law principles and the Merton framework. The decision was based on the social workers' opinion that the Appellant’s appearance and demeanour strongly suggested he was over 18, which justified not conducting a full age assessment. The court emphasized the administrative, non-judicial nature of the process, cautioning against over-legalization of the inquiry.

The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the Respondent failed to consider relevant factors such as physical work or traumatic experiences, finding that the decision letter need only address the major issues to inform an informed reader. The court applied the Wordie test, concluding the letter sufficiently explained the basis of the decision.

Challenges based on alleged irrationality or inadequacy of reasons relating to the Appellant’s vagueness and memory issues were dismissed. The court noted that such detailed explanation is not a prerequisite, especially as these points did not form the basis of the decision. The court further held that judicial review does not extend to merits-based reassessment of what factors should be considered, only whether the decision was lawful and rational.

Finally, the court distinguished the present case from precedents requiring more detailed reasoning, noting the Respondent’s letter addressed the crucial question of age and provided reasons tied to appearance and demeanour, satisfying the legal requirements.

Holding and Implications

The court refused the petition, upholding the Respondent’s age assessment decision. The Appellant’s pleas challenging the adequacy and rationality of the decision were dismissed except for the initial procedural acceptance of judicial review as a competent challenge. The direct effect is that the Respondent’s assessment stands, and the Appellant will be treated as an adult for accommodation purposes. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision reinforces existing principles regarding the sufficiency of reasons and the scope of age assessments under Merton.