IG, R (On the Application Of) v The London Borough of Croydon

Age-assessment claims are ordinarily determined by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), rather than the High Court. The court’s task is to determine the claimant’s actual age as an objective fact, on the balance of probabilities, using a sympathetic assessment of the evidence. A local authority’s assessment should satisfy the safeguards identified in R (B) v LB of Merton and subsequent authority, including a fair, structured and non-adversarial interview, appropriate consideration of vulnerability and background, a holistic assessment, and reasoned conclusions. The court may attach substantial weight to reliable evidence of experienced social workers and to significant inconsistencies in the claimant’s account. The claim was dismissed because the claimant was found to be well over 18.

The claimant arrived in the United Kingdom from Angola with her three-year-old son and claimed to be 16. She sought accommodation and support from the London Borough of Croydon under the Children Act 1989. The Council’s age assessment concluded that she was over 18, and she was transferred from local-authority foster care to asylum support.

The claimant initially challenged the provisional assessment, but amended her claim after the full assessment was served. The central issues were whether the assessment was procedurally fair and whether, on the evidence, the claimant was under 18.

1. The Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal is the appropriate forum for age-assessment cases. Such cases listed in the Administrative Court should ordinarily be transferred under section 31A(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. In the exceptional circumstances, the judge proceeded with the hearing.
2. The court’s role was to determine the claimant’s actual age as a matter of objective fact. The question was decided on the balance of probabilities. The burden of proof did not arise, and the evidence was approached with sympathy towards the claimant, consistently with R(CJ) v Cardiff CC.
3. The relevant safeguards included those summarised in R(AS) v LB of Croydon, drawing on R (B) v LB of Merton and FZ v Croydon LBC: an appropriate adult, a proper explanation of the process, a structured and non-adversarial interview, attention to vulnerability and cultural background, a holistic assessment, trained assessors, open questioning, a fair opportunity to answer adverse matters, and coherent reasons.
4. The assessment complied with those requirements. The two experienced social workers conducted a fair interview, used open questions, and gave the claimant opportunities to clarify or explain her answers. Their evidence, together with that of the claimant’s experienced social worker, was impressive and objective.
5. The claimant’s account contained material inconsistencies. In particular, her admission that she was nearly 15 when her mother left home and that she was pregnant at that time was inconsistent with her claimed age. Her account of the distance to school, the circumstances of her journey to the United Kingdom, and the documentary evidence further undermined her credibility. Physical appearance and demeanour were considered as part of the overall assessment, rather than as determinative matters.
6. The court found that the claimant had not been truthful about her age, was well over 18 when she entered the United Kingdom, and was 22 at the date of judgment. The judicial review claim was dismissed.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No prior appellate decision in this litigation was stated in the judgment.