AZ, R (on the application of) v Hampshire County Council

In a challenge to an age assessment, the tribunal must decide for itself, on the balance of probabilities, whether the individual was a child at the material time. Neither party bears the burden of proof.

Credibility, appearance and demeanour must be assessed together and with caution. An apparently guarded or incomplete account does not by itself establish that an individual has lied about age. Greater weight may properly attach to sustained observations of interaction with peers of known age than to impressions formed during a short and potentially stressful assessment interview.

AZ challenged Hampshire County Council's assessment that he was an adult when it was made in January 2012. He maintained that he was born on 10 January 1996 and was therefore almost 16 at that time.

The council relied on two social-work age assessments, physical appearance and its view that AZ had been guarded when answering questions about his life in Iran. AZ relied on his own evidence and on evidence from staff at the Children's Society and Manchester Academy who had observed him over time and among pupils and young people of a known age.

The central issue was whether AZ was a child at the material time.

1. The claim succeeded. The Tribunal declared that AZ was born on 10 January 1996. The council was ordered to pay his costs, to be assessed if not agreed.

2. The question whether a person is under 18 is a precedent question of fact for the court or tribunal itself, rather than a question confined to judicial review of a local authority's evaluative assessment. Applying R (CJ) v Cardiff County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590, neither party bore a burden of proof and the issue was to be determined on all the evidence on the balance of probabilities.

3. The Tribunal accepted that, where reliable documentary, dental and medical evidence is absent, credibility may be the proper starting point. It nevertheless applied the caution in R (on the application of B) v Merton London Borough Council [2003] 4 All ER 280: an untrue history does not necessarily show a lie about age, and appearance, behaviour and credibility inform one another.

4. The claimant's inconsistencies about the assessment process, his lack of an Iranian identity card and his reluctance to discuss family matters did not undermine his central account. His manner was more consistent with shyness, distress and teenage awkwardness than with a calculated attempt to conceal his age. His appearance was not manifestly inconsistent with his claimed age.

5. The Tribunal gave substantial weight to evidence from people who had repeatedly observed AZ in ordinary settings. His natural interaction with peers aged 16 and 17, and the absence of any indication that he had been placed with an unsuitable age group, were more probative than impressions formed in brief assessment interviews. The first assessment was unreliable, and the second assessment, though more satisfactorily conducted, reached the wrong conclusion.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Original judicial-review proceedings challenging the local authority's age assessment. Permission was granted by Foskett J on 24 April 2012, and subsequent directions were made by the Vice President on 30 May 2012.