C, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Enfield

Age assessments of young asylum seekers must be conducted fairly and with minimum standards of inquiry. Except in clear cases, age cannot be determined solely from physical appearance. The decision-maker should investigate the applicant’s background, including family history, education and activities, and should test credibility appropriately.

The assessment must take account of relevant medical and psychological evidence, the applicant’s vulnerability and the circumstances in which answers are given. Unduly hostile questioning, particularly where trauma or mental illness affects communication, may render the assessment unlawful. A flawed assessment should be quashed and reconsidered through a fresh assessment.

The claimant, an Angolan asylum seeker, asserted that she was born on 12 February 1987 and was therefore a child. The London Borough of Enfield assessed her as aged over 18 on 23 April 2004 and maintained that decision on 15 June 2004.

An adjudicator had accepted her date of birth and the Secretary of State also accepted it, although Enfield remained entitled and obliged to make its own assessment. The claimant sought judicial review on grounds including failure to consider relevant evidence, unfair questioning and failure to account for her vulnerability and mental health.

1. The claim succeeded. The decision of 23 April 2004 was quashed. The Council agreed to conduct a fresh assessment, by different assessors, and to continue the claimant’s existing support until that assessment was completed.
2. The Council was entitled, and indeed had a duty, to reach its own conclusion on age. It was not bound by the views of the adjudicator, the Secretary of State or other authorities, although it was required to have regard to them.
3. The approach in R (B) v London Borough of Merton Council [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin); [2003] 4 All ER 280 was adopted. Age assessment is generally an informal process, but minimum standards of inquiry and fairness must be observed. Except in clear cases, appearance alone is insufficient. Relevant background, family circumstances, education, activities, cultural information and credibility must be considered.
4. The assessment failed to ask why the claimant maintained that she was born on the stated date. It made no material reference to the report of Dr Michie, which supported an age of about 17, or to information from the Child Guidance team, the claimant’s mental-health worker and psychiatrist. Those were relevant matters which had been left wholly or substantially out of account.
5. The interview was conducted in an unduly hostile manner, having regard to the claimant’s age, vulnerability and severe post-traumatic stress disorder. Her reticence and reluctance to answer questions should not have generated adverse inferences without considering the psychiatric explanation for her presentation. The hostile questioning caused her to withdraw and contributed to the assessors’ mistaken disbelief of her evidence.
6. It was unnecessary to determine the challenge to the later decision of 15 June 2004 because the original assessment had already fallen.