N v Staines Magistrates' Court

Age assessments in borderline cases must be conducted fairly and informally, with inquiry into the person’s family circumstances, history, education, activities, ethnicity and culture. Appearance alone will ordinarily be insufficient. A properly conducted Merton assessment by experienced social workers attracts very great weight, although it remains open to challenge. A court determining age under section 99 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 must take that assessment into account. Where a magistrates’ age determination is unlawful, judicial review may still be refused if the Crown Court can urgently make a fresh determination under section 99.

The claimant, who said that he was aged 16, was arrested in connection with cannabis cultivation and initially treated as a youth. Surrey social workers conducted two age assessments using the approach established in R (on the application of B) v Merton London Borough Council, concluding that he was aged 16.

The magistrates nevertheless determined under section 99 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 that he was aged 22, relying on appearance, alleged discrepancies and other evidence. The claimant sought judicial review. The central issues were whether the magistrates’ assessment was unlawful and, if so, whether relief should be granted.

1. The court granted permission to apply for judicial review and held that the magistrates’ finding that the claimant was aged 22 was unlawful.
2. Age is not ordinarily determinable from appearance alone in a borderline case. The decision-maker should inquire into the person’s general background, family circumstances, history, education, activities and relevant ethnic and cultural context, and should assess credibility where the claimed age is in doubt. These are the features of a fair and informal Merton assessment.
3. A Merton-compliant assessment is not binding and does not determine age for all purposes. It remains challengeable, but a properly conducted assessment by trained and experienced social workers must be given very great weight. A court should not readily conclude that such an assessment is flawed.
4. The magistrates had received evidence about the assessment process, but had not been made aware of the significance attached by the Administrative Court to Merton-compliant assessments. Their conclusion that the claimant was 22 was difficult to understand because it was so far removed from the social workers’ assessments.
5. Section 99 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides an alternative route for an urgent fresh determination of age by the Crown Court. The court therefore refused substantive relief despite finding the magistrates’ decision unlawful. The claimant remained able to seek bail separately before the Crown Court.

Not stated in the judgment.