MVN v London Borough of Greenwich

In a disputed age-assessment case, the court must determine the person’s chronological age as a precedent fact on the balance of probabilities. Neither party bears a legal burden of proving that the person is, or is not, a child.

The assessment must be holistic and fair. Credibility concerning age is central, but general credibility may be considered only with care. Decision-makers must account for cultural background, trafficking, trauma and the possibility that a child may display unusual resilience or maturity. Physical appearance, demeanour and apparent independence are not determinative.

Before reaching an adverse conclusion, the assessor must give the person a proper opportunity to address important adverse points while the conclusion remains provisional. Failure to do so may render the assessment unlawful and substantially reduce the weight attributable to it.

MVN challenged Greenwich’s decision of 11 February 2014 assessing him as an adult born on 8 July 1990. He claimed to have been born on 13 May 1997 and therefore to have been a child when trafficked from Vietnam through Europe to the United Kingdom.

The court considered MVN’s account, documentary and witness evidence, the Home Office’s trafficking-related decisions, and the assessment conducted by two Greenwich social workers. The central issues were whether MVN’s account of his age and journey was credible, whether Greenwich’s assessment complied with the Merton requirements of fairness, and what weight should be given to the assessment.

1. Role of the court. The court had to determine MVN’s age as a precedent fact on the balance of probabilities. The question was one for the court, rather than a conventional review of the local authority’s decision. The local authority’s assessment nevertheless remained relevant when deciding what weight to attach to it.
2. Applicable principles. The assessment had to follow the holistic and fair approach required by R(B) v LB of Merton. Physical appearance and demeanour were unreliable if treated as determinative. The court had to consider MVN’s family, education, cultural background, journey, trafficking circumstances and evidence as a whole. Credibility concerning age was especially important, although wider credibility could properly be considered provided that this primary focus was maintained.
3. Trafficking and other evidence. The Home Office letters accepting MVN as a minor and identifying reasonable grounds for trafficking were material but did not create a binding presumption of age. The court was entitled to take account of the effects of trauma, fear of removal, coached or misleading accounts given during trafficking journeys, and the fact that children from different backgrounds may display substantial resilience or practical independence.
4. Fairness of Greenwich’s assessment. Greenwich’s assessors had reached a final conclusion before the meeting at which they read their report to MVN. They did not give him a proper opportunity, while the view remained provisional, to address important adverse points concerning his family relationships, computer skills, journey, apparent maturity and lack of visible distress. This was a significant breach of the Merton requirements and rendered the assessment unlawful. The court could not attach substantial weight to its conclusion, although it did not disregard the assessors’ evidence entirely.
5. Fact-finding and outcome. MVN’s account was coherent and substantially truthful. Apparent inconsistencies were either explained, insignificant, or resulted from questions and notes that failed to capture his meaning. The evidence of his foster carer, who had observed him daily for more than a year, was compelling. MVN was therefore found to have been born on 13 May 1997, rather than 8 July 1990, and to be aged 18 at the date of judgment.