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

Age assessment must be conducted holistically. A decision-maker cannot determine age solely from physical appearance or demeanour. Relevant matters include the applicant’s history, credibility, family and educational background, activities, culture and ethnicity, together with procedural fairness and adequate reasons.

Expert evidence based on physical or psychological maturity is unsafe where the statistical methodology has not been scientifically validated. A social worker’s assessment may be relied upon where the assessor has sufficient experience, considers the relevant factors and reaches a reasoned conclusion, even if the assessment contains some inaccuracies.

The claimant, an Afghan asylum seeker, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority’s assessment that he was an adult. He claimed to have been born during the Afghan year 1372 and relied on an Afghan identity document, his own chronology and paediatric evidence from Dr Birch. The local authority relied principally on a second assessment carried out in December 2010, supported by oral evidence and expert criticism of Dr Birch’s methodology.

The claim had been stayed pending decisions concerning the court’s role in age disputes and the weight of paediatric evidence. The central issue was the claimant’s age and date of birth.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court determined that the claimant had reached the age of 18 by 9 December 2010. His date of birth was therefore treated as 9 December 1992.
2. The principles stated in R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin) governed the assessment. Age could not be determined solely from appearance. The decision-maker had to consider the applicant’s history, credibility, family circumstances, education, activities, ethnicity and culture, and give adequate reasons. Procedural fairness required matters adverse to the applicant to be put to him.
3. The court accepted Dr Stern’s criticisms of Dr Birch’s statistical methodology. Her calculations measured maturity rather than reliably establishing chronological age. In the absence of properly blinded and peer-reviewed studies using appropriate statistical methods, the calculations could not safely be relied upon. Her experience remained relevant, but her excessive confidence in the methodology materially reduced the weight of her conclusions.
4. The first local-authority assessment was given little weight because its maker was not called for cross-examination. The second assessment was different. Its assessors had considered the relevant factors, relied on no flawed statistical method and had sufficient practical experience. Some inaccuracies and obscurities did not justify rejecting the assessment as a whole.
5. The claimant’s identity document was treated with very great caution. The circumstances in which it was obtained and the possible motives of the person supplying the age information meant that it provided little, if any, reliable support for the claimed age. The claimant’s own chronology was also too vague and inconsistent to provide strong support.

The claim was brought as a first-instance judicial review. It was stayed pending R (A) v LB Croydon [2009] UKSC 8 and R (A) and (WK) v LB Croydon and Kent CC [2009] EWHC 939 (Admin).