- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
JR256, Appeal Against the Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant applied for judicial review after Judge Colton dismissed an application challenging a factual finding that the Appellant was an adult. The Appellant had previously been the subject of a detailed, "Merton"-compliant age assessment carried out by Manchester City Council ("Company A") which concluded he was an adult, several years older than he claimed. The Appellant then moved to Belfast and became known to the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust ("Company B"), which produced an age assessment accepting the Appellant's claimed date of birth and stated it was giving him the benefit of the doubt. The Respondent (Secretary of State for the Home Department) disputed the Trust's assessment, relying instead on the earlier Company A assessment and commissioning an independent assessment in Manchester. The judicial review was heard together with related cases raising common issues about age assessments for asylum applicants; leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted but the application was dismissed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Judge Colton was entitled to prefer the Manchester (Company A) Merton‑compliant age assessment over the Belfast Trust (Company B) assessment and to find, on the evidence, that the Appellant was an adult.
- Whether the Trust's assessment was procedurally unfair or non‑Merton‑compliant, such that the court should have intervened.
- Whether the trial judge failed to apply the "benefit of the doubt" or otherwise misapplied Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in rejecting the Appellant's claimed age.
- Whether the Court of Appeal should overturn Judge Colton's factual findings on the applicable standard of appellate review (i.e. whether the findings were "plainly wrong" or infected by material error of law).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The trial judge did not properly consider the underlying material and instead impermissibly preferred one report over its contents.
- The judge and the Manchester assessment impermissibly relied predominantly on physical appearance.
- The benefit of the doubt was not applied; rejecting the Appellant's claimed age engaged Article 8 and required careful proportionality analysis and protection of childhood rights.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Manchester age assessment was Merton‑compliant, thorough and credible; the Trust's assessment was limited, untested and failed to engage with the Manchester report and multi‑agency material.
- The trial judge correctly weighed the evidence, applied established authorities and was entitled to prefer the Manchester assessment; the appeal was an improper attempt to re‑argue factual matters.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R(WA (Palestinian Territories)) v Home Secretary [2021] 1 WLR at para [41] | Where a precise date of birth cannot be established, the best that can be done is to assess age. | The court applied this principle in determining the Appellant's age "on the evidence available." |
| R(A) v Croydon London Borough Council (Secretary of State for the Home Department) & Anor | Parliament intended local authorities to determine whether someone is a child but, where disputed, the question of age is for the court. | The court treated the disputed age as a matter for judicial determination, citing Croydon for that allocation of responsibility. |
| R(N) v Lambeth London Borough Council (Secretary of State for the Home Department) & Anor | As above (part of the Croydon authorities on age assessment and local authority duties). | The court relied on the Croydon line to explain the court's role in resolving disputed age. |
| R(B) v Merton London Borough Council [2003] 4 All ER 280 | Sets out guidance for lawful age assessments ("Merton‑compliant" assessments) and factors to consider. | The court used Merton as the benchmark for assessing whether the Trust's assessment was procedurally and evidentially adequate and for evaluating the Manchester assessment. |
| R(WA) (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] 1 WLR 2117 | Article 8 entitles a person to have their date of birth correctly recorded; there is public interest in accurate, evidence‑based records. | The court considered Article 8 in the context of age determination but concluded Article 8 was not violated given the robust Manchester assessment. |
| R(HAM) v Brent London Borough Council [2022] PTSR 1779 | The court has jurisdiction to determine whether the procedure used to assess age was fair; fairness commonly requires a Merton‑compliant assessment. | The court relied on HAM to assess procedural fairness of the Trust's process and to justify scrutiny of the Trust's assessment. |
| Peter Kelly v Department for Communities and the Department of Finance [2023] NICA 21 | Applied appellate principles summarising approach to review of factual findings. | The court cited this decision in setting out the appellate standard and approach to challenges to findings of fact. |
| Mihail v Lloyds Banking Group [2014] NICA 24 | Appellate deference: factual findings will be accepted unless plainly wrong or impossible for a reasonable tribunal to reach. | Quoted for the principle that appellate courts should not re‑hear factual issues absent the "plainly wrong" test. |
| McConnell v Police Authority for Northern Ireland [1997] NI 253 | Support for appellate deference to primary fact findings. | Used to reinforce the standard of non‑interference with findings of fact unless clearly wrong. |
| Carlson Wagonlit Travel Limited v Connor [2007] NICA 55 | Further authority on appellate review of factual findings. | Reinforced the point that appellate courts should accept first-instance findings unless unreasonable. |
| DB v Chief Constable [2017] UKSC 7 | Sets out the "plainly wrong" test and principles for appellate review of factual findings. | The court cited DB to confirm the high threshold for overturning factual conclusions on appeal. |
| In re B (A Child) [2013] 1 WLR 1911 | Interference with a trial judge's findings of primary fact is only appropriate in rare cases (no evidence, misunderstanding, or unreasonable conclusion). | Referenced to explain when appellate interference with factual findings is permitted. |
| Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 | Appellate court must examine determinations and intervene where facts found are such that no judicial person could have made them. | Relied upon to explain the scope for appellate intervention where a determination is unsupportable by evidence. |
| R (AS) v Kent County Council [2017] UKUT 00446 (IAC) | Emphasises need for robust procedural compliance in age assessments and the role of benefit of the doubt in some contexts. | Referenced when discussing procedural safeguards and the benefit of the doubt in age assessments. |
| MH v Hungary app 10940/17 | International authority referred to in discussion of benefit of the doubt and procedural protection for minors. | Cited in support of the proposition that benefit of the doubt is important in age‑assessment contexts. |
| AC v France app 15457/20 | ECtHR authority confirming Article 8 engagement by age assessments and emphasising best interests of the child and presumption of minority. | The court considered this authority but concluded it did not assist the Appellant given the cogent factual evidence that he was an adult. |
| Darboe and Camara v Italy app 5797/17 | ECtHR authority on Article 8 engagement and presumption of minority in age assessments. | Relied on by the Appellant in supplementary argument; the court found these authorities did not change the outcome on the facts. |
| Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41 | Appellate courts should not interfere with findings of fact unless material error of law or no reasonable judge could have reached the decision. | Used to support limitation on appellate disturbance of factual findings absent legal error or unreasonableness. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court (Judge Treacy delivering the judgment) proceeded from settled principles: where age is disputed and no reliable documentary evidence exists, the court must determine age on the available evidence and assess whether procedures were fair, with Merton providing the benchmark for lawful assessments. The trial judge examined in detail the Manchester (Company A) Merton‑compliant assessment and the Trust (Company B) assessment. He found the Manchester report to be lengthy, detailed, multi‑disciplinary and to have considered background records, professional observations and the Appellant's history. By contrast, the Trust's assessment was criticised for (inter alia) failing to engage with the Manchester assessment, accepting the Appellant's account at face value (including an explanation for non‑engagement with the Manchester process which the Manchester records undermined), not liaising with relevant agencies, and lacking comparable detail.
Applying the authorities, the trial judge weighed credibility, appearance, demeanour and the credibility of the Appellant's account together. He concluded there was abundant evidence supporting the Manchester assessment that the Appellant was an adult. The Court of Appeal applied the high standard for overturning factual findings on appeal (the "plainly wrong" or no‑reasonable‑judge standard) and held that Judge Colton's factual conclusions were open to him, not infected by material error of law, and not plainly wrong.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal is dismissed and the trial judge's dismissal of the judicial review application is upheld.
Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's claimed date of birth and status as a minor was rejected on the evidence and the Respondent's reliance on the Manchester Merton‑compliant assessment was upheld. The court reinforced that local authorities must carry out Merton‑compliant, collaborative and evidence‑based age assessments and that appellate interference with primary factual findings is limited to cases meeting the "plainly wrong" or material legal error thresholds. The judgment emphasises safeguarding risks from placing adults with children but did not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond applying existing authorities.
Alert