Local authority concedes age dispute challenge and accepts young refugee wrongly age assessed after 18 months of litigation
The London Borough of Islington conceded a claim for judicial review (JR-2024-LON-001198) days before substantive hearing after having disputed the age of a young Sudanese refugee “AA” and deeming him to be an adult.
AA is Sudanese national from North Darfur who arrived in the UK in March 2022 when he claimed to be a child of 17. AA was treated as an adult by the Home Office after claiming asylum on arrival before repeated concerns were raised that he was in fact a child, including by accommodation providers and detention staff employer or contracted by the Home Office.
AA was ultimately taken into the care of the London Borough of Islington where he was accommodated, supported and educated in accordance with his claimed age. Some seven months later, an age assessment was convened by social workers from the Home Office’s pilot National Age Assessment team. The assessment concluded that AA was an adult, 3 years older than he claimed to be such that he was deemed not entitled to support and accommodation under the Children Act 1989.
A substantial body of evidence then developed that AA had been wrongly assessed to be an adult and was in fact substantially younger and a child on arrival in the UK. That evidence included NGO staff; friends; education providers; an Independent Reviewing Officer and placement staff as well as a range of paediatric healthcare workers, none of whom doubted AA’s claimed age. Despite this body of evidence, Islington maintained its dispute as to AA’s age, relying on the age assessment conducted by the pilot NAAB. This was despite the assessment suffering significant procedural flaws; over relying on fragile indicators of age and failing to take into account the substantial trauma that AA had suffered both in Sudan and on his journey to the UK. Subsequent to proceedings being issued, the Home Office accepted AA’s asylum claim.
The pilot NAAB age assessment bore striking similarity to that addressed in the case of R (GR) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] UKAIT JR-2022-LON-1513 reported on here where the social workers sought to endorse their age assessment by reliance on what were deemed by the Tribunal to be ultimately “dubious” sources. Similarly in AA’s case, the social workers repeatedly referred to “expert” evidence or “research” to support their conclusions particularly relating to AA’s physical appearance, development and maturity, which on proper scrutiny were not sources worthy of such a label.
The local authority was driven to concede the case before trial, accepting that the age assessment should be quashed and AA’s age accepted.
AA was represented in the Upper Tribunal proceedings by Antonia Benfield, instructed by Kathryn Gooding and Najibah Chowdhury of Irwin Mitchell.
