AW (A Child), R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon

Age assessment of an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child is an evaluative task for trained and experienced social workers. The assessment must be conducted fairly, with sensitivity to cultural differences, trauma and the effect of questioning on responses. The benefit of any doubt must be given to the child, but this does not require decision-makers to begin with a presumption that the claimed age is correct.

There is no universal requirement to invite further representations after every interview. That depends on whether the matters relied on were explored during the interview and whether the view reached was provisional. Any significant new material relied on against the child must be put to him. Reasons must be given as soon as reasonably possible and read as a whole. The court should intervene only for an error of law, including reliance on immaterial matters, failure to consider material matters or irrationality.

The claimant, an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child from Afghanistan, challenged Croydon’s assessment that he was 17 rather than nearly 16. The assessment determined the statutory services owed to him and followed an earlier assessment that he was over 18.

The claimant alleged that the interview was hostile, that the reasons were inadequate and delayed, and that procedural fairness required an opportunity to make further representations about the matters relied on. He also challenged the late preparation of his future plans and assessment. The central issues were the fairness and legality of the age assessment and the appropriate treatment of the remaining challenge after those plans had been produced.

1. The age assessment claim was dismissed. The assessment was not shown to be irrational or otherwise flawed in law. The reasons, considered as a whole, justified the conclusion that the claimant was 17.
2. Age assessment is an imprecise exercise. Social workers must approach it with an open mind and give the benefit of any doubt to the claimant. That does not prevent them from reaching their own conclusion on the evidence. They may conclude that the claimed age is incorrect where they are satisfied that this is the proper conclusion.
3. The assessment must be conducted by experienced and trained social workers using fair procedures. The claimant should be put at ease, and cultural background, trauma and the effect of questioning on responses must be considered. Probing questions are permissible, but hectoring, browbeating and general hostility are not.
4. There is no universal requirement to give the claimant a further opportunity to make representations after the interview. Where relevant matters have been explored and answered during the interview, reopening them may be unnecessary. Where the view remains provisional because matters have not been put to the claimant, further representations may be required. Any material obtained or relied on after the interview must be put to him.
5. Reasons must be given, although they need not be extensive or immediate. They should be provided as soon as possible; Croydon’s aim of seven days was described as an appropriate general approach. The reasons must identify the matters relied on and must be assessed as a whole.
6. NA v the London Borough of Croydon [2009] EWHC 2357 Admin was fact-specific and did not dictate the result. The criticisms of the future assessment and plan could not be determined because the claim had not been amended to challenge them and Croydon had not had an opportunity to respond. The claim was dismissed on that ground, without prejudice to any fresh challenge. There was no order as to costs.

This was a first-instance judicial review. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.