P, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon

Age assessments by local authorities are reviewed by ordinary Wednesbury principles, with careful and anxious consideration. The absence of an engaged Convention right or asylum-related issue does not itself create an enhanced standard of review. Fairness is fact-sensitive. Assessors need not formally confront a young person with a provisional conclusion during the interview, provided clear reasons are later given and an effective opportunity to respond is available. A review is procedurally unfair where it omits material evidence which the authority accepts would have been relevant, particularly evidence from a person with close and informed contact with the claimant. The appropriate remedy is to quash the defective review and require a fresh review.

The claimant, an Afghan young person, challenged Croydon’s assessment that he was approximately 17½ rather than the younger age he claimed. The assessment had been conducted under the relevant working protocol, practice guidance and the principles stated in R (on the application of B) v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton. The claimant relied on reports by Dr Birch and evidence concerning his key worker, Rory Hall.

The challenge alleged procedural unfairness and irrationality in both the original assessment and a subsequent review. The central issues were the applicable intensity of review, the fairness required during an age-assessment interview, and whether the review had properly considered material evidence.

The court granted permission, quashed the review decision and directed a fresh review. The original age assessment was upheld.

1. Standard of review. The consequences of an age assessment did not justify an enhanced Wednesbury test. Article 8 was not engaged, and this was not an asylum claim attracting the more intensive approach discussed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bugdaycay and R (Farrakhan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The decision therefore stood or fell under ordinary Wednesbury principles, including consideration of material matters and procedural fairness.
2. Interview fairness. Fairness in an age assessment is a question of fact and degree. The process is not a criminal investigation. The assessors were not required to return after the interview with a provisional conclusion that the claimant was lying and invite further comments. It was sufficient in this case that the assessors gave clear written reasons, enabling the claimant to respond with legal advice. The inconsistency about schooling, together with physical presentation and demeanour, was rationally capable of supporting the assessment.
3. Review evidence. The review had considered Dr Birch’s reports and had addressed information obtained from Rory Hall. It failed, however, to consider evidence that Hall had expressed a view to the claimant’s solicitor. That evidence was potentially material because Hall spent substantial time with the claimant and Croydon accepted that such views should be taken into account. The court could not say that consideration of it would have made no difference.
4. Remedy and costs. The review was quashed and a fresh review ordered. Neither side received permission to appeal. The claimant was awarded half his costs, subject to legal aid assessment.