The claimant is a young person from Iran, who arrived in September 2022, claiming to be a minor. His age was disputed by the Home Office and he was subsequently dispersed to Liverpool as an adult.
The claimant maintained that he was a minor and was referred to Liverpool City Council who completed a Brief Enquiry that concluded that he was around 23 years old.
This judgement relates to a permission stage age assessment judicial review claim (a specific legal process in which an individual seeks permission from the court to proceed with a judicial review related to their age assessment).
Before a judicial review can proceed, the claimant (the person seeking the review) must obtain permission from the court. During the permission stage, the court evaluates whether the claimant has a properly arguable case based on the facts, evidence, and relevant circumstances. If the court believes the case has merit, permission is granted, allowing the judicial review to proceed. Otherwise, it is refused.
Solicitors for the claimant argued that permission for judicial review should proceed on the following issues:
The judge agreed that the claims brought forward could be considered in a judicial review and permission was then granted. It is important to note that this judgement does not consider whether Liverpool City Council acted lawfully or not, this only relates to whether the claim can be heard.
The judge made some useful suggestions concerning practice on the three grounds brought by the claimant.
There was a discrepancy here as the local authority felt they had completed a lawful minded to process, however the claimant stated that he was unaware that he had a right to respond to any adverse points and the process was not fully explained. On this, the judge stated
“the word “minded” – including any translation for a young person – is rather technical. This is really about identifying concerns, and allowing a chance to answer them. It means this: no decision has been made; we do have some concerns; we want to give you the chance to help us with these concerns; we will listen; and then we will make a decision”.
Many social workers will already be adopting this type of language to complete Minded To discussions (both in brief enquiries and full age assessments), however we may not always be demonstrating this in our reports. Therefore, it may be useful to tighten up our recording procedures to demonstrate that not only the discussion was held (therefore demonstrating case law compliancy), but that it was accessible to the client.
In their conclusion, the local authority disputed credibility on the following grounds;
The local authority highlighted in their report that the claimant reported that he never went to school, nor celebrated or marked birthdays, however the claimant argued that they had failed to take this into account when drawing conclusions on credibility on ages/dates of birth, stating it was unreasonable to test someone’s knowledge of age when they have had no experience of doing this.
As above, many social workers will be considering background experience when looking at evidence relating to knowledge around ages/dates of birth, but it’s important to demonstrate that in the report. This would evidence that the benefit of doubt had been considered and applied, however the conclusion on credibility remained.
The judge is less prescriptive on this claim, stating that they agree with the local authority that physical appearance was considered as a factor (rather than a deciding feature) however granted permission to proceed to judicial review as the other grounds linked to this claim (i.e. credibility around shaving history) and therefore could be considered.
As already highlighted, this judgement does not consider whether Liverpool City Council acted lawfully or not (that will be considered in the judicial review) it is solely concerned about whether permission to proceed with the judicial review should be granted. However it does provide some helpful points to consider when undertaking minded to discussions, and that we need to consider the benefit of the doubt when assessing credibility.
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
We’re always happy to chat all things age assessment, if you’d like to know more about the services we offer please get in touch here
