Q, R (On the Application Of) v Leicestershire County Council & Anor

In an age-assessment judicial review, the court must determine the claimant’s age and date of birth on the balance of probabilities. The local authority has no margin of discretion on that issue. The assessment must focus primarily on evidence concerning the claimant’s age, while allowing appropriate use of wider credibility evidence. All material evidence must be considered, including country information and expert evidence. Decision-makers should account for the effects of fatigue, fear, trauma, language and cultural differences on an asylum seeker’s ability to give a coherent account. Demeanour and physical appearance may be considered, but they do not bind the court. There is no automatic benefit-of-the-doubt rule, although the evaluation of evidence must reflect the circumstances in which an unaccompanied asylum seeker arrived.

Q, an Eritrean asylum seeker, challenged Leicestershire County Council’s determination that he was an adult aged at least 21. He asserted that he was born on 5 May 1999 and was a child when he entered the United Kingdom. His challenge alleged that the assessment was procedurally unfair and factually wrong. Permission was refused on the procedural ground but granted on the factual age issue.

The court had to determine Q’s date of birth and age on the available evidence. The issue included the reliability of his evidence, the significance of his conduct and demeanour during an interview conducted shortly after a difficult journey and arrest, and whether his account of leaving Eritrea to avoid military conscription was credible.

1. The claim succeeded. The court determined that Q was born on 5 May 1999 and was 15 when he began Grade 10. He had fled Eritrea while in Grade 10 to avoid military service.
2. The court itself had to determine Q’s age on the balance of probabilities. Neither party bore a formal burden of proof. There was no automatic benefit-of-the-doubt rule, but the evidence had to be evaluated in light of the particular circumstances, including Q’s lack of original identity documents.
3. The primary focus in assessing age was the credibility of the claimant’s evidence about age. Wider credibility evidence could be considered, but that primary focus had to be maintained. The court was not bound to reach the same view of appearance or demeanour as social workers.
4. The court was required to consider all material evidence. This included country information about Eritrean conscription and the treatment of conscripts. The evidence showed that young Eritreans could reasonably fear recruitment and that preparations for recruitment could begin while a pupil was in Grade 10.
5. Q had been interviewed after a long and difficult journey, arrest and only limited sleep in a police cell. He was tired and frightened. The assessment did not show that his tiredness had been adequately taken into account. His silences and uncommunicative behaviour were therefore not treated as evidence of dishonesty or coaching.
6. The court gave little or no weight to the views of custody staff who had not provided statements or been cross-examined. It accepted Q’s evidence on the critical issues, while attaching little weight to the social worker’s vague recollection and the destruction of contemporaneous notes.

not stated in the judgment.