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

Permission to challenge a local authority age assessment should be granted only where there is a realistic prospect that the court, at a substantive fact-finding hearing, will reach a younger age assessment. The court must consider the assessment as a whole, including the quality of the evidence and any alleged procedural defects.

A failure to provide an appropriate adult does not automatically make an assessment unlawful or unfair. The question is whether the departure from good practice undermined the fairness or reliability of the assessment in the particular case.

FZ, an unaccompanied young person from Iran, sought judicial review of decisions by the London Borough of Croydon concerning his support, accommodation and age. He claimed to be aged 16, whereas the authority assessed him as at least 18.

The claims concerning needs assessment and accommodation were resolved for the hearing. The remaining issue was whether permission should be granted to advance the age challenge, including alleged defects in the Merton assessment and the absence of an appropriate adult during interview. The court also addressed consequential directions and costs.

1. Permission refused on the age ground. The court held that there was no realistic prospect that a substantive fact-finding hearing would conclude that FZ was younger than the age assessed by the authority.
2. The assessment was a proper Merton assessment. The alleged inconsistencies concerning shaving, demeanour, notes and schooling were not material when the assessment was read with the fuller notes and other evidence. The vaccination card did not provide a sufficient basis for a different conclusion because it was a photocopy, lacked identifying features and could not be verified.
3. The court assumed, for the purpose of the application, that FZ had been a child and should have had an appropriate adult. That failure did not, in the circumstances, undermine the fairness of the process. The evidence showed that he had engaged appropriately with the interpreter, could be assertive and gave detailed answers. A departure from good practice does not necessarily result in procedural unfairness.
4. The evidence of the allocated social worker and the assessment materials supported the conclusion that FZ’s manner, communication and general demeanour indicated that he was older than claimed. His mental health difficulties did not alter that assessment.
5. The parties agreed that a Personal Adviser would be appointed and that the Pathway Plan would be reconsidered. The remaining matters were left subject to agreed directions, with costs reserved except that there was no order as to costs on the age ground.

First-instance permission hearing. The judgment records earlier directions made by HHJ Steven Davies, including an anonymity order, but no appellate decision.