Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed an application for judicial review regarding the applicant's age. The applicant (ABE), a South Sudanese national, claimed to be born on 1 December 2003 (age 19 upon arrival in the UK on 1 September 2020). The respondent (Kent County Council) attributed a date of birth of 1 December 1997 (age 23 upon arrival). The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his date of birth to be unreliable, particularly concerning how he claimed to have received his birth date from his parents. The Tribunal ultimately determined the applicant's date of birth to be 1 December 2000, making him aged 19 upon arrival in the UK on or around 1 September 2020. The application for judicial review was refused.
Issues
- The court assessed conflicting claims about the applicant's date of birth (1 December 2003 vs. 1 December 1997), considering evidence of his claimed birth date, school attendance, and other factors to determine he was born on 1 December 2000.
- The court found the applicant's testimony about his date of birth to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and implausible explanations about how he came to know his claimed birth date, leading to a determination that he likely received a false date of birth before arriving in the UK.
- The court applied the standard of proof of a balance of probabilities to determine the applicant's age, finding that the evidence did not support either party's claims but indicated he was born on 1 December 2000.
- The court rejected the application of the 'benefit of the doubt' principle in age assessment, stating it is not a requirement of fairness and that evidence must be assessed in the round rather than granting a benefit of the doubt to the applicant.
Holdings
The Upper Tribunal has determined that the applicant's date of birth is 1 December 2000, making him 19 years old upon arrival in the United Kingdom on or around 1 September 2020. The court refused the application for judicial review, discharged the order for interim relief made on 7 May 2021, and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. The Tribunal found that while the applicant claimed to have been born on 1 December 2003, the evidence did not support this claim, and the applicant was provided with a date of birth by unknown persons prior to his arrival in the United Kingdom, likely to be treated as a minor. The Tribunal's primary finding was that the applicant does not know his true date of birth but was provided with a false one, and attributed to him a date of birth of 1 December 2000.
Remedies
- The Upper Tribunal discharged the interim relief order made by Mr Richard Clayton, KC, on 7 May 2021, which had been granted during the proceedings to protect the applicant while the judicial review was being considered.
- The Tribunal ordered a detailed assessment of the applicant's publicly-funded costs to determine the appropriate level of funding for the judicial review proceedings.
- The Upper Tribunal refused the applicant's application for judicial review, determining that the respondent's age assessment was procedurally fair and that there were no arguable errors of law.
- The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the judicial review proceedings, including those in the Upper Tribunal, with enforcement subject to the Tribunal's permission.
Legal Principles
- The standard of proof in age assessment cases is the balance of probabilities. The court emphasized that the applicant is not required to prove their age, and that untruthfulness about one aspect does not invalidate all evidence.
- There is no burden of proof on the applicant to prove their age. The court is not bound to choose between the parties' positions but must assess the evidence as a whole.
- A Merton-compliant age assessment requires procedural fairness, including suitable interpreter, no predisposition to age, appropriate adult, adequate reasons, and a 'minded-to' procedure. Vulnerability issues must be considered.
Precedent Name
- HAM v London Borough of Brent
- KS (benefit of the doubt)
- Agbabiaka
Cited Statute
Children Act 1989
Judge Name
H Norton-Taylor
Passage Text
- very significant problems with the applicant's own evidence. There is an absence of relevant evidence in certain respects. Other evidence adduced to support his claimed age and date of birth has either been entirely unreliable or only of limited weight. All-told, I do not accept that the applicant was born on 1 December 2003.
- references in Ms Weir's evidence to the applicant stating that he started school in 2010 at the age of 10 and Ms Bass' opinion that, as at late 2021, the applicant was aged between 20 and 22
- 1 December 2000