MC v Liverpool City Council

Age is a matter for judicial determination on the evidence. The ordinary civil standard is the balance of probabilities, but age assessment is not necessarily a choice between two competing dates. The court may assess an age within a range supported by the evidence. Assessment must be holistic. Individual features, such as appearance or demeanour, should not be considered in isolation but alongside the person’s history, conduct and other relevant evidence. Social workers’ expertise is relevant, although their assessments necessarily contain a subjective element and are not based wholly on objective empirical criteria.

The claimant, an asylum seeker, challenged Liverpool City Council’s assessment that he was two years older than his claimed date of birth. The council had conducted two assessments using the Merton guidelines. The claimant gave oral evidence and relied on documentary material in support of his claimed age. The central issue was his true age, or the fairest age to attribute to him on the evidence where the precise date of birth could not be established.

1. The court determined the claimant’s age as 24 September 1992. His claimed date of birth, 24 March 1994, was rejected, but the court also found that the council’s assessment of 24 March 1992 was too old. The assessment represented an evaluative conclusion rather than a finding of the claimant’s actual date of birth.

2. The ordinary civil standard of proof was applicable. The process was nevertheless one of assessment. It was not necessary to choose between two alternatives when the evidence supported a range of possible ages.

3. The court applied the approach identified in R(A) v Croydon [2009] UKSC 8 and in R (C) v Croydon [2009] EWHC 3542 (Admin). The latter decision had applied the Supreme Court’s approach.

4. The Merton guideline approach required an holistic assessment. No single feature, including facial hair or demeanour, was sufficient by itself. Relevant features had to be considered together with the claimant’s history, conduct, capabilities and the other evidence.

5. The social workers’ expertise was relevant, but their assessments were not based on wholly objective empirical criteria. The court was entitled to evaluate their evidence and to reach a different assessment where the evidence, considered as a whole, justified it. The claimant’s inconsistent accounts and use of differing dates of birth materially reduced the reliability of his evidence, while the social work evidence also required careful scrutiny.

6. There was no order as to costs, save for detailed assessment of the claimant’s costs. Consequential relief was left to be agreed.