Oxfordshire County Council v JN & Anor

The court has jurisdiction in care proceedings to declare a child’s age. The assessment must consider the whole evidential canvas, including history, physical appearance, behaviour, background, education, development, activities and credibility. Although the usual Merton approach is a social-worker assessment without medical evidence, expert evidence may be admitted where the circumstances are exceptional and the usual assessment cannot assist. Reliable, independent expert evidence founded on peer-reviewed research may, together with confirmatory evidence, justify an age declaration on the balance of probabilities.

The local authority sought a declaration concerning the age of a child who had arrived in the United Kingdom from Uganda following fraudulent visa applications and disputed family relationships. DNA evidence and wider investigations raised substantial doubts about the documents, identities and ages of the children.

The issue was whether the court should determine the child’s age using expert MRI-based skeletal-age evidence, notwithstanding the conventional approach derived from Merton. The court considered the expert evidence, the child’s presentation and statements, the social-worker evidence, and the surrounding documentary and factual material.

1. Jurisdiction and approach. The court had jurisdiction to make a declaration as to the child’s age within the care proceedings. Age assessment required consideration of the whole evidential canvas, including history, physical appearance, behaviour, background, circumstances, educational attainment, development, activities and credibility. The court had regard to Wiltshire County Council [2013] EWHC 2747, E v The London Borough of X [2005] EWHC 2811, and London Borough of Lambeth v TK EWCA Civ 103.
2. Expert evidence. The usual approach, derived from R v Merton London Borough Council [2003] EHWC 1689, involved a social-worker assessment and generally no medical evidence. That approach could not assist in the present circumstances because the child’s account and documentation were unreliable. The court therefore accepted that expert MRI evidence was an appropriate, although unusual, means of addressing age.
3. Evaluation. The two independent experts came from different disciplines and reached materially consistent conclusions. Their methodology was supported by peer-reviewed research, and their evidence was compelling. The social-worker assessment and the child’s own observations were confirmatory rather than the primary basis of the decision.
4. Order. The court declared that the child was 14 years and 8 months old, corresponding to a date of birth in late October or early November 2007.

not stated in the judgment.