SH, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council

In an age-assessment judicial review, a brief enquiry may be lawful where it is obvious that the person is over 25, obvious that they are under 18, or unclear such that a full assessment is required. The legality of the process is fact-specific. The assessment documents may be read together when deciding whether adequate reasons were given. The decision-maker may take account of a Home Office age assessment as part of the background, provided it undertakes its own assessment and does not place irrational or improper weight on that material. A general challenge to the assessment form or procedure will fail without an identifiable defect capable of causing unfairness. At permission stage, an objective age challenge must raise a factual case which, taken at its highest, could properly succeed at a contested hearing.

The claimant, an Afghan national who claimed to have been born on 26 November 2006, challenged Sheffield City Council’s conclusion following a brief age enquiry that he was over 25 and therefore not entitled to children’s services as a child. He alleged procedural unfairness, irrationality, inadequate reasons, failure to consider relevant matters, and error in the objective assessment of his age. He also sought interim accommodation as a child.

Permission had been refused on the papers. The Administrative Court considered the renewed application, the Council’s procedure, the individual assessment, and the objective factual question of age.

1. Permission refused. The claimant’s grounds did not have an arguable basis with a realistic prospect of success.
2. A general challenge to the Council’s brief-enquiry procedure was misconceived. The form was capable of identifying cases which were obviously over 25, obviously under 18, or unclear and requiring a full assessment. Complaints concerning handwriting, recording practices, interpreter issues, cultural context, and reasons depended on the facts of each case.
3. The reasons for the individual assessment were adequately given by reading the over-25 letter together with the brief-enquiry form. The recorded observations concerning physical appearance and presentation, including adult demeanour, enabled the claimant to understand why the conclusion had been reached. The level of detail satisfied the approach in South Bucks District Council v Porter [2004] 1 WLR 1953 and AS v Croydon [2011] EWHC 2091 (Admin).
4. The Home Office assessment was relevant background material which it was sensible to consider. Its inclusion in the form did not show irrational or improper reliance, or failure by the social workers to conduct their own assessment.
5. There was no evidence of unfairness arising from interpretation, ability to participate, or failure to investigate further. The assessors were entitled to regard the position as obvious on the evidence before them, including physical appearance and demeanour.
6. The objective age challenge also failed. Applying the approach identified in R (FZ) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 59, the claimant advanced only an assertion of his date of birth and no factual case which, taken at its highest, could properly succeed at a contested hearing.
7. Interim relief concerning accommodation necessarily failed with refusal of permission. In any event, it would have been refused having regard to delay, absence of real hardship, the balance of convenience, public-interest factors, the strength of the case, and the limited remaining period before the claimed eighteenth birthday.

not stated in the judgment.