The recent Upper Tribunal judgment in R (on the application concerning age assessment) UKUT 192 (IAC) 2026 is a significant decision for those involved in age assessment practice.
While the judgment addresses several legal issues, two aspects are particularly relevant for social workers and local authorities.
First, the Tribunal concluded that the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), despite references to operational independence, functions within the wider immigration control framework.
Second, the case clarifies questions around accountability and responsibility for age assessment decisions undertaken within the NAAB structure.
A notable feature of the case was the Home Office’s submissions regarding who should properly be named as the defendant in challenges to NAAB assessments.
The Secretary of State initially suggested that they should not automatically be treated as the appropriate defendant, despite the NAAB being located within the Home Office.
During the proceedings, the possibility was raised, though ultimately rejected, that individual social workers conducting NAAB assessments could be named instead. The Tribunal found this inappropriate.
The NAAB was introduced through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 as part of wider reforms to age assessment practice. Government guidance has described the NAAB as an independent and specialist function intended to support consistency.
However, the Tribunal’s analysis emphasised that the NAAB operates within the Home Office and that its functions are connected to immigration decision‑making.
The Tribunal noted:
“The NAAB is a decision-making function in the Home Office…”
and further observed that evidence from the NAAB lead confirmed that the NAAB “operates within the UK Home Office” and that designated persons are “employed” by the Home Office. The Tribunal concluded that NAAB personnel are not distinct from the Secretary of State for the purposes of litigation.
This finding is relevant because the language of independence has been used to describe the NAAB’s role. The judgment clarifies that, structurally and legally, the NAAB:
The judgment does not comment on the professionalism of individual social workers, but it does clarify the statutory and organisational context in which NAAB assessments take place.
Concerns about the relationship between age assessment practice, social work ethics and immigration control have previously been raised by organisations such as the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium (RMCC).
These concerns have included:
The Tribunal’s findings give renewed relevance to these discussions, particularly its recognition that the statutory framework underpinning the NAAB exists within an immigration context.
Age assessments have significant implications. A finding that a young person is an adult can affect:
Practitioners frequently describe the complexity of balancing child‑centred practice with the legal and procedural requirements of the immigration system.
Practitioners undertaking age assessments should ensure their work remains:
Maintaining professional curiosity, critical reflection and a safeguarding‑focused approach is essential within systems shaped by immigration legislation.
As age assessment practice evolves, practitioners benefit from structured frameworks that support lawful, ethical and defensible decision‑making.
The Social Work Age Estimation Framework (SAEF) was developed to support practitioners through:
SAEF training aims to support practitioners to undertake assessments that are legally robust and reflective of the wider systems in which they operate.
More information is available at:
https://isws-ltd.co.uk/age-assessment-training/
This judgment is significant not only for its legal conclusions but also for what it clarifies about the statutory and organisational context of the NAAB.
The Tribunal’s findings indicate that the NAAB’s role is closely connected to immigration control, notwithstanding references to operational independence.
As this area continues to develop, it remains important for social workers, lawyers and local authorities to consider questions of accountability, independence, safeguarding and the role of social work within immigration systems.
