MIA, R (on the application of) v Dorset Council

Where new evidence may lead to a significantly different age assessment, a local authority must undertake further enquiries and reassess the person’s age. It must ask whether the evidence might produce a significantly different conclusion, not whether the existing assessment is already shown to be wrong.

A genuine identity document has evidential value even where the circumstances in which its information was compiled are uncertain. Refusing reassessment by applying the merits of the original assessment, rather than the lower threshold for triggering reassessment, may constitute process irrationality. It may also produce an irrational outcome where the authority previously treated the absence of the document as adverse evidence.

The claimant, an unaccompanied asylum seeker from Afghanistan, had been assessed by Dorset Council as an adult aged approximately 23. His solicitors later produced a genuine Afghan taskira, stating that he had been assessed as aged 10 in 2017, together with expert reports supporting the document’s authenticity and reliability.

Dorset Council refused to reassess his age on two occasions. The claimant sought judicial review, alleging that the Council had misapplied the ADCS Age Assessment Guidance and acted irrationally. The court also considered whether the claim concerning the first refusal had been filed in time and whether relief should be refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

1. The claim concerning the first refusal was filed when the claim form was filed online, not when the Administrative Court Office issued it. It was therefore brought within the three-month period in CPR 54.5(1), and permission was granted to challenge both refusals.
2. The ADCS Age Assessment Guidance was relevant guidance, notwithstanding that the court did not need to decide whether the Council was legally bound by it. Its reassessment threshold required consideration of whether the new material might lead to a significantly different conclusion, such that the person might be notably older or younger than initially assessed. In this case, the difference between an age of 23 and an age of 16 plainly met that threshold.
3. The Council committed process irrationality. Having asked itself the question suggested by the Guidance, it then focused on whether the taskira was reliable and whether it established the claimant’s true age. The proper question was whether it was capable of leading to a significantly different conclusion. That logical error and critical gap required further enquiries and reassessment.
4. The outcome was independently irrational. The Council accepted that the taskira was genuine and issued on the date it bore. It therefore had evidential value and was capable of supporting a different age. The Council had previously treated the absence of a taskira as adverse to the claimant; rejecting the document once produced was prima facie illogical and appeared unfair.
5. The high threshold under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was not met. The court could not determine the merits of the original age assessment in judicial review proceedings. The refusals were quashed, and a mandatory order required Dorset Council to reassess the claimant’s age, taking account of the taskira and the three reports relating to it.