OAM, R (on application of) v Sheffield City Council

A brief age enquiry is not inherently procedurally unfair. Its suitability depends on the circumstances of the individual case. It may be used where it is obvious that a person is over 25, obviously under 18, or where uncertainty requires a fuller assessment.

Reasons may be supplied by reading the assessment form and decision letter together, provided they identify the matters relied upon and enable the person to understand and challenge the decision. The process need not record every matter discussed. Home Office age information may be considered as background, but assessors must conduct their own assessment. At the permission stage, a claimant must show an arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success, or, on the objective issue of age, a factual case capable of succeeding at a contested hearing.

The claimant, an Eritrean national who said he was born in 2007, challenged Sheffield City Council’s brief age enquiry, which concluded that he was over 18 and treated him as over 25. He alleged procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons, improper reliance on a Home Office assessment, failures concerning interpretation and relevant evidence, and irrationality.

Permission had been refused on the papers by HH Judge Belcher. The claimant renewed the application orally and also sought interim accommodation as a child. The central issues were whether the brief enquiry was unlawful in principle or in its application, whether the evidence disclosed a properly arguable factual case about age, and whether interim relief should be granted.

1. Permission refused. The claim disclosed no arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success. Interim relief concerning accommodation also failed.
2. A general challenge to the Council’s brief enquiry procedure was misconceived. The form was capable of identifying cases that were obviously over 25, obviously under 18, or uncertain and requiring a full assessment. Whether the procedure was appropriate or fairly conducted remained fact specific.
3. The assessment form and decision letter were properly read together. They identified physical appearance, presentation and adult demeanour as reasons for the conclusion. The further evidence also showed that the assessors considered inconsistent dates of birth, explained the issue to the claimant and gave him an opportunity to respond. The reasons therefore met the applicable standard described in South Bucks District Council v Porter [2004] 1 WLR 1953 and AS v Croydon [2011] EWHC 2091 (Admin).
4. The absence of fuller contemporaneous recording did not itself make the process unfair. The evidence established that a Tigre interpreter was used for the substantive assessment and outcome, and the later Tigrinya interpretation concerned the decision letter. The claimant’s general assertions of difficulty did not establish arguable unfairness.
5. Home Office information was relevant background which the assessors were entitled to consider, while remaining responsible for their own assessment. There was no evidence that it received irrational or improper weight. Reliance on physical appearance and presentation was not irrational in an appropriate case, particularly where the relevant form required cultural, ethnic, racial and life-experience matters to be considered.
6. The claimant produced no factual case which, taken at its highest, could properly succeed at a contested factual hearing on age. This applied the permission threshold identified in R (FZ) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 59. Interim accommodation relief would also have been refused because of delay, the public interest and the weakness of the case.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers by HH Judge Belcher on 7 February 2024. The claimant renewed the application orally before the Administrative Court, which refused permission and interim relief.