Background:
MIA arrived in the UK on 15 June 2023 as an unaccompanied asylum‑seeking child from Afghanistan. After an initial Home Office assessment, his claimed age of 16 was accepted. He was first placed in hotel accommodation in Coventry, then moved into other Home Office accommodation. Following a referral, he was transferred to a residential unit for unaccompanied asylum‑seeking children in Kent, where he became a looked‑after child under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
On 15 August 2023, MIA was transferred to Dorset under the National Transfer Scheme, and Dorset continued to support him as a child in line with his claimed age. However, in October 2023, Dorset carried out an age assessment and reached an adverse conclusion. They decided MIA was not eligible for Children’s Services, discharged him from their care, and moved him into adult asylum accommodation.
Following this decision, MIA managed to obtain a copy of his Taskira. He presented this document to Dorset and asked the local authority to reconsider their decision and carry out a fresh age assessment. The document was sent to independent experts who concluded that the documents were more than likely authentic.
The local authority did not dispute that the Taskira itself was genuine. However, they argued that the information recorded on it could not be shown to have been compiled in a reliable or appropriate way, and therefore the document should not be treated as trustworthy evidence of MIA’s true age.
They also argued that there is no legal duty on a local authority to carry out a fresh age assessment when new information is provided. In the alternative, they said they had considered the Taskira and maintained that it was not irrational to conclude that the new information did not cast doubt on the original assessment or suggest that it might lead to a significantly different outcome.
What the Court Said
The High Court rejected Dorset’s reasoning and found their approach to be legally flawed.
The judge accepted that Dorset did not dispute the document’s genuineness and said that once a document is accepted as genuine, it must be treated as evidence capable of affecting the age conclusion.
The authority was wrong to dismiss it simply because they could not verify the process by which the information was recorded.
The court was clear: the question is not whether the document proves the original assessment was wrong.
The correct test is:
Could this new evidence possibly lead to a significantly different conclusion?
This is a low bar.
The court rejected the argument that there was not an obligation to reassess.
If new evidence emerges that could change the outcome, a refusal to reconsider can be unlawful.
The judge found a “logical error” in Dorset’s approach.
By focusing on the reliability of the information rather than its potential impact, the authority misunderstood the legal test.
Important notes:
What this means for social work practice
If you have made a negative brief enquiry decision/full age assessment decision and a young person later presents a Taskira, birth certificate or similar document:
Even a photo or scan can be enough to trigger reconsideration.
Ask:
“Could this document possibly lead to a significantly different conclusion about age?”
If yes → a full age assessment is required.
Memory gaps are normal and should not automatically be held against them.
If you decide not to reassess, you must show:
Why this judgment matters for frontline social workers
It reinforces that social workers are not expected to determine authenticity but to recognise when evidence might change the outcome and ensure the young person receives a fair assessment.
A full copy of the judgment can be found here
Disclaimer: This blog post provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult relevant legal sources and seek professional guidance when conducting age assessments
If you’d like training on brief enquiries or full age assessments, please get in touch.
