AI, R (on the application of) v West Berkshire Council

The adequacy of judicial reasons is fact-specific. It depends on the nature of the case, the circumstances, and the parties’ state of knowledge. A judgment must be read fairly and as a whole. Short reasons suffice if they explain the essential reasoning so that the losing party and any appellate court can understand why the decision was reached. In age-assessment cases, the tribunal determines the jurisdictional fact itself and acts inquisitorially, but it has no universal duty to select a different date of birth. Where the case is presented as a binary choice between child and adult, and the tribunal makes clear credibility findings linking deliberate dishonesty to age, there may be no material distinction between rejecting the claimed date of birth and finding the date attributed by the authorities. An appellate court should assess reasons in context before ordering a remittal.

AI, a Sudanese national, claimed that he was born on 4 August 2004 and was therefore under 18 when he arrived in the United Kingdom in October 2021. The Home Office had assigned him a date of birth of 20 April 1998. Following a referral, West Berkshire Council conducted an age assessment and adopted that date.

The judicial review claim was transferred from the Administrative Court to the Upper Tribunal for fact-finding. Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell refused the claim and declared that AI was an adult at the relevant time, with a date of birth of 20 April 1998. The appeal concerned whether the Upper Tribunal had given adequate reasons both for finding that AI was an adult and for accepting the precise date of birth attributed by the Home Office.

1. Appeal dismissed. Singh LJ gave the leading judgment, with Arnold and King LJJ agreeing. The only ground was inadequacy of reasons. AI did not allege a legal misdirection or that the factual conclusion was unavailable on the evidence.
2. The adequacy of reasons is fact-specific and depends on the nature and circumstances of the case, including the parties’ state of knowledge. The judgment must be read fairly and as a whole. The essential question is whether the losing party and any appellate tribunal can understand why the decision was reached. The informed-audience principle may be relevant, but requires caution. These principles were considered in Re V (A Child) (Inadequate reasons for findings of fact) [2015] EWCA Civ 274, English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd: Practice Note [2002] EWCA Civ 605 and R (H) v Ashworth Special Hospital Authority [2002] EWCA Civ 923.
3. The Upper Tribunal correctly directed itself that child status was a jurisdictional fact to be determined by the tribunal, and that the task was inquisitorial rather than governed by a conventional burden of proof: R (A) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8; R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590. However, although a tribunal may find a different date of birth, it has no universal duty to do so. R (F and Ors) v London Borough of Lewisham [2009] EWHC 3542 (Admin) had to be read in its proper context.
4. In this case the issues were materially binary. AI had asked the Upper Tribunal to accept his claimed age, while the Council relied on the Home Office date. The Upper Tribunal’s findings that AI had deliberately misled it about his age and related matters provided an adequate basis for rejecting his claimed date of birth. There was no material distinction, in the circumstances, between finding that he was an adult and accepting the attributed date.
5. Although the Council’s assessment had deficiencies and was given limited weight, the Upper Tribunal made an unchallenged finding that AI had attended school in Sudan. That finding supported the conclusion that he was older than claimed. The reasons, read as a whole, were therefore adequate. The potential remedies of remittal or rehearing identified in English did not arise.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2025] EWCA Civ 136, the appeal was dismissed.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell refused the judicial review claim by an order sealed on 8 January 2024 and declared that AI was an adult at the relevant time, with a date of birth of 20 April 1998.
• Administrative Court — Judicial review proceedings were commenced on 31 May 2022. Permission was granted on 26 July 2022, after which the claim was transferred to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing.