MT, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon

Age assessment under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 is an evaluative exercise for the local authority. Judicial review does not substitute the court’s assessment of age or evidential weight. Procedural fairness does not require every detail relied on by decision-makers to be put separately to the claimant, provided the significant material has been fairly explored. Where an interview is interrupted because of an inadequate interpreter, material obtained during it may still be considered with appropriate caution. The assessment of inconsistencies, including imprecision about childhood dates, remains a matter for the decision-makers unless it demonstrates unfairness or legal error.

The claimant, who had arrived in the United Kingdom from Eritrea claiming to be an unaccompanied minor, was initially accepted as a child and placed in foster care. Following concerns about her age, social workers conducted two interviews and concluded that she was at least 19. The claimant renewed an application for permission to seek judicial review, alleging procedural unfairness in the treatment of concerns expressed by other professionals and her foster carer, reliance on material from an interview affected by inadequate interpretation, and unfair insistence on precision about dates. The central issue was whether those matters arguably invalidated the local authority’s age assessment.

1. Permission refused. The four grounds did not individually or cumulatively justify permission to apply for judicial review.

2. Under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, the local authority is responsible for deciding the applicant’s age. That decision involves evaluation, judgment and impression. The court must not substitute its own assessment for that of the social workers. The approach stated in R(A) v London Borough of Croydon [2008] EWCA Civ 1445 and R(B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 Admin applied.

3. Fairness did not require the social workers separately to put to the claimant every detail concerning other professionals’ views about her age. The important material had been raised as a headline point and explored during the interviews. Nor did fairness require the foster carer’s partial withdrawal from her initial concern to be put separately to the claimant, particularly when it was unclear what useful response could have been made.

4. The first interview was terminated because of concerns about the interpreter. That did not require the social workers to disregard everything learned during it. They could attach such weight as they considered appropriate, provided they approached the material cautiously. Their decision to continue the assessment with another interpreter demonstrated that appropriate caution had been exercised.

5. The evaluation of inconsistencies and the extent to which the claimant’s recollections about dates could be relied on were matters for the social workers. Treating those matters as relevant did not itself establish procedural unfairness.