This newly published Upper Tribunal judgment concerns a young person from Sudan, ASB, who arrived in the UK in February 2025 and was treated as an adult by both the Home Office and Liverpool City Council following a brief enquiry. The local authority concluded he was a “clear and obvious adult” aged 23–25.
ASB challenged this by judicial review. After a full fact‑finding hearing, the Tribunal declared his date of birth to be 1 July 2008, confirming he was a child at the time of arrival.
While the judgment covers a wide range of evidence, it offers further learning for social workers undertaking brief enquiries.
Brief enquiries are inherently difficult and subjective
The judge emphasised what many practitioners already know in that physical appearance and demeanour are notoriously unreliable indicators of age.
Different assessors can (and do) reach different “clear and obvious” impressions. What feels “obvious” to one worker may feel entirely different to another. This judgment reinforces that subjectivity is unavoidable, and therefore decisions must be grounded in caution, not confidence.
The decision applied the margin of error but the reasoning was considered flawed
Although the assessors referenced the margin of error, the judge found their rationale problematic:
The judge noted that another assessor might have interpreted the same behaviour as that of a “cocky teenager,” demonstrating the fragility of demeanour‑based conclusions.
Third‑party evidence was not thoroughly considered
During the proceedings, a claimed cousin, MAMJ, came forward to support ASB’s claimed age. The local authority applied caution to this evidence, which the judge reiterated was appropriate, but also commented that the local authority had not fully considered the evidence, as they were influenced partly by “unsubstantiated concerns about “trends” in age‑disputed cases”.
The Tribunal stressed that:
Brief enquiries are a notoriously difficult task
This judgment reinforces what practitioners experience daily, brief enquiries require rapid decision‑making based on limited information, and the risk of error is high. Workers should feel confident acknowledging this difficulty rather than feeling pressured to produce certainty.
Brief enquiries are not covered in ADCS guidance
There remains no national guidance on how to conduct a brief enquiry. Social workers are therefore working without a clear framework, despite the high‑stakes nature of these decisions.
Practitioners should consider escalating this gap to their Director of Children’s Services (DCS). A national position is urgently needed to support consistent, defensible practice.
The purpose of a brief enquiry is NOT to determine age
A brief enquiry is designed to test whether someone could be a child, not to decide their age.
A decision based solely on appearance and demeanour can be lawful, but only when:
The accepted margin of error remains five years.
Brief enquiries should be quick and where there is doubt, accommodate
If the person could be a child, they must be treated as a child and a full age assessment should follow.
When:
…then the correct outcome is to accommodate and proceed to a full assessment.
How we can help
Given the lack of national guidance and the complexity highlighted in this judgment, we provide brief enquiry training to help practitioners feel confident, calibrated and defensible in their decision‑making.
If you or your team would like to attend, get in touch and we can share upcoming dates or arrange a session.
