Tribunal decisions

The decision

In the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Judicial Review
JR-2023-LON-001882

In the matter of an application for Judicial Review

The King on the application of

MAA
(Anonymity Order made)

Applicant

versus

LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

ORDER

BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede

HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard from Mr V Jagadesham of counsel, instructed by Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit (GMIAU) and from Mr A Campbell of counsel, instructed by Liverpool City Council, for the respondent at a fact-finding hearing on 14 to 16 May 2024

IT IS DECLARED THAT:

(1) For the reasons given in the attached judgment, MAA’s date of birth is 20 June 2005.

(2) On that basis, the Applicant’s claim for judicial review is allowed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

(3) The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs of this claim, to be subject to a detailed assessment if not agreed.

(4) There shall in any event be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.

Signed: S Kebede

Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede

Dated: 3 June 2024

The date on which this order was sent is given below

For completion by the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Sent / Handed to the applicant, respondent and any interested party / the applicant's, respondent’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date): 03/06/2024

Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:

Notification of appeal rights

A decision by the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review is a decision that disposes of proceedings.

A party may appeal against such a decision to the Court of Appeal on a point of law only. Any party who wishes to appeal should apply to the Upper Tribunal for permission, at the hearing at which the decision is given. If no application is made, the Tribunal must nonetheless consider at the hearing whether to give or refuse permission to appeal (rule 44(4B) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008).

If the Tribunal refuses permission, either in response to an application or by virtue of rule 44(4B), then the party wishing to appeal can apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. This must be done by filing an appellant’s notice with the Civil Appeals Office of the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the date the Tribunal’s decision on permission to appeal was sent (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52D 3.3).

Case No: JR-2023-LON-001882
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

Manchester Civil Justice Centre
1 Bridge Street West
Manchester M60 9DJ.

3 June 2024

Before:

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

THE KING
on the application of

MAA
(Anonymity Order made)
Applicant
- and -

LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL

Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr V Jagadesham of Counsel, instructed by Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit (GMIAU), for the applicant

Mr A Campbell of Counsel, instructed by Liverpool City Council, for the respondent

Hearing date: 14 – 16 May 2024

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judge Kebede:

1. The applicant, a national of Syria, asserts that he was born on 20 June 2005 and was thus a child of 17 years of age when he entered the UK on 3 November 2022. Following an age assessment completed on 21 November 2022 the respondent, Liverpool City Council (“Liverpool CC”), produced an age assessment report (Age Brief Enquiry Form) dated 21 November 2022 in which a date of birth was assigned to the applicant of 20 June 1994, making him 29 years of age at the time of the hearing rather than his claimed age of 18 years.

2. The applicant challenges that age assessment by way of this judicial review claim, on the ground that the age assessment decision was wrong as a matter of precedent fact. The applicant’s true age is therefore the only issue before me.

BACKGROUND

3. The applicant states that he was born in a small village in Syria and lived there with his parents and younger brother. He did not attend school but helped his father in his agricultural and farming work. He spoke Kurdish Kurmanji but could not read or write in that, or any other, language. He was born on 20 June 2005 and knew his date of birth because his mother told him. His brother was 4 years younger than him and his date of birth was 25 July 2009. He and his brother celebrated their birthday every year and their mother made them a cake. He did not have documentary proof of his age with him in the UK, although he was aware that there was a document called a ‘surat-qaid’, a registration document, which was held by the village Mukhtar. He left Syria because a request was made to his father for him to join the YPG to do military service and his father was scared that he would be killed in military service. His father and maternal uncle decided to send him away and made arrangements with a smuggler to take him out of the country. He left Syria on 15 August 2022 and was taken by the smuggler to Turkey with 5 others. From there he and the others were taken by lorry to an unknown place and then by boat across the sea to the UK.

4. The applicant stated that after his arrival he told the officials that his date of birth was 20 June 2005 but they told him that they had registered him as 28 years of age. He was taken by coach to a hotel in Liverpool. He met another asylum seeker, Peshwar Sado, an Iraqi Kurd, on the coach who then looked after him and helped him whilst he was staying in the hotel and after he was moved to another hotel. Whilst at the first hotel he was directed to an organisation called Active8 which could not help him but which then directed him to his current solicitors, the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit (GMIAU). A referral was made to Liverpool City Council as an age disputed minor with a request for accommodation and support, and a few days later two women came to his hotel to speak to him. That was in fact the visit on 21 November 2022 by the two social workers who carried out the Brief Enquiry.

5. The applicant was interviewed by Edwina Ryall and Cassie Fitzgerald, from Children’s Social Care, the Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC)’s Team for Liverpool City Council, using an interpreter on the telephone. The social workers completed an Age Brief Enquiry Form (‘brief enquiry’) the same day in which they agreed with the view of the immigration officers during the Home Office interview where the applicant was assessed as having a date of birth of 20 June 1994.

6. Following requests made by GMIAU the respondent disclosed the brief enquiry on 28 November 2022.

7. GMIAU then served a pre-action protocol letter on the respondent, on 13 December 2022, challenging the age assessment, asserting that the local authority had failed to carry out a lawful assessment of age by over relying on physical appearance, by carrying out a ‘brief enquiry’ over one brief session without the presence of an appropriate adult and using an interpreter by telephone, by failing to provide the applicant with a copy of the decision in writing and information about his right to challenge the same, and by failing to act in accordance with the principle of the benefit of the doubt. Further evidence was produced in the form of a statement from Peshwar Sado, who had assisted the applicant when they were both staying in the hotel, and from Helene Santamera, Project Co-ordinator at the British Red Cross.

8. The respondent replied on 21 December 2022, maintaining the decision and asserting that the short-form assessment was lawful and that the process was fair.

9. On 20 January 2023 the applicant filed a judicial review claim in the Administrative Court challenging the decision of 21 November 2022 in the brief enquiry and relying upon evidence supportive of his claimed age, namely statements from Rory Goldring of Asylum Link Merseyside, Peshwar Rashid Sado and Helene Santamera from the British Red Cross, as well as his own evidence and consistent account.

10. On 20 January 2023, in the Administrative Court, His Honour Judge Davies granted the applicant’s application for interim relief in the form of accommodation and support until the final determination of the judicial review proceedings or further order, subject to an application by the respondent to set aside his order. The respondent then applied to set aside the order and the applicant applied for the order to be enforced. In an order issued on 21 February 2023, following a hearing on 9 February 2023, His Honour Judge Pearce declined to set aside the order of HHJ Davies and maintained the order for interim relief. His reasons for so doing were given in his judgment, reported as R (on the application of MA) v Liverpool City Council [2023] EWHC 359 (Admin), which was handed down on 21 February 2023.

11. Following HHJ Pearce’s judgment, the respondent did not oppose the granting of permission for judicial review. Permission was accordingly granted by consent by the Administrative Court in an order sealed on 30 May 2023.

12. The case was then transferred to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing to determine the applicant’s age and directions were made for the filing and service of relevant documents. Both parties filed and served supporting evidence and skeleton arguments. The respondent was directed to provide the handwritten notes of the social workers who had conducted the brief enquiry, which had still not been made available. The parties attended a round table meeting but were unable to settle the proceedings. The matter then came before me for a hearing on 14 to 16 May 2024.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

13. The parties agreed a consolidated fact-finding hearing bundle of documents divided into sections A to C: Part A comprising legal pleadings and orders; Part B being witness statements; and Part C comprising documentary evidence including the brief enquiry report and notes and disclosures from Liverpool CC (care records and case notes), correspondence between GMIAU and Liverpool CC, the applicant’s asylum registration- questionnaire and SEF forms and country information about military service in Syria. An agreed authorities bundle was also produced for the hearing. In addition, the social workers’ handwritten notes for the brief enquiry were served on GMIAU on 13 May 2024 (although one page was missing) and the full notes were produced at the hearing by Mr Campbell.

14. The following is a summary of the main parts of the documentary evidence, although full and detailed consideration has been given to the entirety of the documentary evidence, whether specifically referred to and summarised in this decision or not.

Respondent’s Documents

Brief Enquiry from Liverpool Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children’s (UASC) Team dated 21 November 2022

15. As mentioned above, the assessment was conducted by Edwina Ryall and Cassie Fitzgerald, social workers employed by Liverpool CC. The outcome of the assessment was that the applicant was an adult over the age of 18.

16. Under the heading “Physical appearance and presentation observations”, the assessors described the applicant’s appearance, noting that he presented as approximately 5 feet 8 inches tall with a developed bone structure and broad shoulders, with a defined beard line across his face with dark shadows, with a fully formed jaw line and physical characteristics of an older male such as a deep voice, aged skin and a prominent Adam’s apple. The assessors stated that the applicant could not remember when he first started shaving but that he informed them that he shaved once in Syria and once in the UK and that he was 17 years old when he started shaving.

17. The social workers noted, under the hearing “Identity”, that the applicant stated that he had no documentation to confirm his identity but only had a village counsellor paper which remained in Syria. Under the heading “Age” they noted that he had stated his date of birth as 20 June 2005 based on his mother having told him that when he was 10 years of age and that she told him in 2020, but then that she told him he was 15 years of age in 2020 and 16 years in 2021. The applicant told the age assessors that his brother was 13 years of age and said that the age difference was 5 years which was corrected to 4 years. He said that he left Syria because he was asked to join the army and that from the age of 18 they would ask people to join the army.

18. Under the heading “Journey Details” the applicant told the social workers that he left Syria on 15 August 2022 because people from the YPG asked him to join the army. Under “Health” it was stated that the applicant had reported no current health issues, and under “School, Education, Training or Employment History” it was reported that he had not attended school but had worked with his father as a farmer.

19. Under the heading “Minded To Session” the assessors recorded that the applicant was informed that they were minded not to accept his claimed age because the timelines he had provided led him to being the age of an adult, because he had already been age assessed elsewhere as noted in his Home Office interview and was assessed as an adult, and because his physical appearance and demeanour was that of an adult and he appeared to be clearly over the age of 18.

20. In their Conclusion, the assessors both agreed that the applicant’s physical appearance and facial features were not that of a 17 year old but that of an adult coinciding with the view of the immigration officer during his asylum interview.

21. Both assessors provided details of their qualifications and experience.

Applicant’s Documents

The Applicant’s First Witness Statement dated 16 January 2023 (page 132)

22. The applicant stated that he was born in Ain Diwar, a small village in Syria and that he lived with his parents and younger brother and worked with his father in farming and did not attend school. He was born on 20 June 2005 and his brother was born on 25 July 2009. He knew that because his parents told him. They celebrated their birthday every year and their mother made a cake for them. The only document he had was a registration document, a ‘surat-qaid’, which was held by the village Mukhtar. He left Syria when a request was made to his father that he join the YPG to do military service. The applicant gave details of his journey to the UK and his experiences after arriving in the UK. He gave details of the age assessment and stated that the assessors told him that they thought he was over 18. He was not told that that was a final decision and was not given anything in writing. His solicitor obtained the report from Liverpool City Council. He provided responses to the inconsistencies relied upon by the social workers and stated that they had never told him that they were relying upon those mistakes, and he responded to the social workers’ comments about his appearance. The applicant stated that he was lonely, scared and unhappy in his accommodation as it was a hotel full of adults. He referred to being assisted by Peshwar when he was in the hotel and after he was moved to another hotel. He referred to his attendance at a group set up for age disputed young people and run by Helene and stated that it was nice being in a room with other young people playing games. It was through Helene that he went to a cycling group at Asylum Link and met Rory. Aside from those groups, and when Peshwar took him out, he had nothing to do and he would spend time alone in his hotel room. He did not have any relatives here and had no contact with his family.

The Applicant’s Second Witness Statement dated 30 November 2023 (page 162)

23. The applicant stated that his situation had changed since his previous statement, as he had been moved into accommodation by Active8 and was living with other young people. He had a support worker, Eve, whom he saw most weeks and who helped him a lot. He had found it difficult to look after himself but he had learned how to cook. He had attended some English classes at Active8 and Asylum Link and since September had been attending Liverpool City College. He had had a social worker, Chrissy, until he turned 18. Since turning 18 he had had to pay for his own gas, electricity and water and had been told how to manage but he was struggling. He did not see Peshwar so much since moving. The applicant stated that Peshwar had set up an Instagram account for him on his mobile phone but his phone was broken and he had had to get a new phone and he could not access his Instagram account. He had not had any contact with his family and would like to contact them.

First Witness Statement of Peshwar Rashid Sado, dated 16 January 2023 (page 142)

24. Mr Sado explained that he first met the applicant in the bus which took them to their hotel in Liverpool. The applicant had told him that he was 17 years of age and he had never had any reason to doubt that as he looked and acted like a 17 year old. The applicant spoke to him as his elder and he spoke to him as a teenager and as someone looking out for his well-being. He used to take the applicant out to the park, the city centre and the seaside and helped him get to appointments. The applicant would often come to his room in the hotel at night as he was scared. He had continued to see him once he was moved to another hotel. There was no way that he was 28 years of age, which would be 4 years older than himself.

Second Witness Statement of Peshwar Rashid Sado, dated 30 November 2023 (page 169)

25. Mr Sado stated that he remained in contact with the applicant. The applicant was like his younger brother and he looked up to him like an older brother. Now that he (Mr Sado) had been moved to other accommodation in Chester they did not see each other as often. Mr Sado confirmed that he had set up Instagram on the applicant’s phone but he was unable to help him log in on his new phone after the old one broke.

Witness Statement of Helene Santamera, dated 17 January 2023 (page 149)

26. Ms Santamera explained that she was employed by the British Red Cross as Project Co-ordinator – Refugee Support in the Liverpool City Region and that her role was to co-ordinate drop-in services for British Red Cross Refugee Support across Merseyside. She stated that, prior to her current role she was a lawyer for 13 years, specialising in Human Rights and Refugee Law and that she specialised in working with unaccompanied and/or separated children (UASC) and had worked with asylum seekers and refugees, including in Syrian resettlement and with UASCs and young people who were age disputed. In her current role, she had set up a drop-in session specifically for young people who were age disputed and not in local authority care. That now consisted of a fortnightly drop-in on a Tuesday, which was run in collaboration with, and at the premises of, Asylum Link Merseyside. She first met the applicant at a drop-in session on 6 December 2022. She found that he behaved in a childlike manner and could not believe that the date of birth in his papers gave a year of birth of 1994. She was astounded that it could be said that he looked to be 28 years of age. She considered that he presented, by his appearance, demeanour and behaviour, more in line with his stated age of 17 than a 28 year old. She noted that he spoke with a tone that was slightly high as expected from a teenager and she could see no defined beard line in his appearance. He did not look out of place with other young people. Ms Santamera provided the dates on which she met the applicant, she referred to his choice of gift at a Christmas party, namely a teddy bear, and to his behaviour at some of the events. She concluded that her impression of the applicant was that he was younger than 18 and she stated that she would be extremely concerned about him being made to remain in adult accommodation as it was clear that he was isolated, scared and not able to receive the support he needed.

Email from Helene Santamera dated 22 March 2024 (page 153)

27. In a subsequent email, Ms Santamera explained that she was unable to attend the judicial review hearing as her involvement in this case fell outside the remit of the British Red Cross, which was solely concerned with humanitarian activities and did not include becoming part of legal proceedings. She stated that the BRC’s policy to date had been to refuse requests for witness statements in legal proceedings and she therefore clarified that her witness statement was provided prior to her knowledge of that policy. Her provision of the statement was therefore made in error and she suggested that the court be invited simply to look upon the factual elements of the statement she had provided.

Witness Statement of Rory Goldring, dated 17 January 2023 (page 155)

28. In his statement, Mr Goldring explained that he was employed by Asylum Link Merseyside as Liverpool Project Lead - Action Asylum. He stated that he had been a registered social worker since 2020 and had approximately 8 years of professional experience working with young people in local authority Children and Young People (CYP) services as well as in the third sector. Since 2022 he had been working with asylum seekers via the Action Asylum project at Asylum Link. He had met the applicant on 2 occasions, on 20 December 2022 and 10 January 2023, and he had witnessed him in group settings and in one to one conversations during bike rides, riding breaks and debriefs. Mr Goldring stated that his impressions of the applicant were consistent with his stated age of 17 as opposed to his alleged age of 28, and his reasons for so concluding were based upon his appearance, mannerisms and behaviour. Mr Goldring explained that he was 27 years of age himself and he found it hard to believe that the applicant was older than him. He concluded that he had no reason to doubt the applicant’s stated date of birth. He would be concerned for his safety and welfare should he remain in adult hotel accommodation, since his youthful presentation could leave him at risk of isolation and exploitation, and he believed that the applicant needed age-appropriate local authority support.

Witness Statement of Anca Enache-Stephan, dated 17 November 2023 (page 158)

29. Ms Enache-Stephan stated that she was employed by the City of Liverpool College as the ESOL Progress Leader (Pastoral role). She had been an ‘English as an Additional Language’ teacher for 7 years before moving on to a pastoral role and had mainly worked within a secondary setting before coming into further education in 2022 when she started supporting 16-19 year olds access education. She first met the applicant in September 2023 and had seen him 6 times in class and one time for a one-to-one session. She explained that the applicant was studying ESOL at the City of Liverpool college at Beginner level and was in a group of students aged between 16 and 18. She taught his group for an hour a week, every Friday at 11:30. She observed that when he was with his classmates the applicant presented the same as the rest of his peers in terms of physical appearance, behaviour, engagement and general interactions and was settled in class. She had never felt there was anything out of place about the applicant in terms of appearance, attitude or behaviour. Ms Enache-Stephan stated further that the applicant also attended classes on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays with other teachers at the college and that no concerns had been raised by any teachers about his appearance or presentation. She did not think that the applicant looked or acted like a 29-year-old and considered that the applicant did not stand out in any way as being older or more mature than his peers.

Witness Statement of Katy Gorman, dated 28 November 2023 (page 160)

30. Ms Gorman stated that she was employed by the City of Liverpool College as an ESOL Tutor for young people aged 16-18 and had worked as an EFL/ESL (English as a Foreign or Second Language Teacher) for over 15 years, moving into an ESOL specific environment in 2019. She focussed on teaching lower-level learners and had also taken on an additional role as an ESOL maths tutor. She first met the applicant in September 2023 and currently taught him maths once a week. He was in a class of pupils aged 16-18. She had now seen him in class once a week for the last 10 weeks and throughout that time had not had any reason to suspect that he was anything other than the age he stated that he was. Ms Gorman stated that the applicant’s demeanour, attitude to learning, interactions with peers and knowledge of the world around him did not suggest to her that he was any older than his cohort.

THE HEARING

31. The evidence did not commence on the first hearing date, unfortunately, owing to interpreter issues. The applicant had concerns about the interpreter initially booked because of his dialect in Kurdish Kurmanji and, despite efforts being made throughout the day, it was not possible to locate a suitable interpreter for the day. The applicant specifically requested a Syrian Kurdish Kurmanji interpreter and it appeared that such interpreters were in short supply in the area. The applicant objected to a Kurdish Kurmanji interpreter from any country aside from Syria and Mr Campbell objected to the applicant’s solicitors’ own interpreter being used for the hearing (a suggestion made as a last resort and owing to the unusual circumstances). Eventually an interpreter was located at the end of the day to commence the following day, although he could not attend face to face. Mr Jagadesham indicated that the applicant preferred a face to face interpreter but I considered there to be no reason why an interpreter appearing via CVP was not appropriate, particularly given the difficulties in locating an interpreter satisfying the applicant’s requirements.

32. The evidence therefore commenced on the second day with the new interpreter appearing remotely by CVP. Although there were occasional issues arising in the interpretation, I was satisfied that nothing material arose from them. Since the applicant had the benefit of his solicitors’ own interpreter being present to raise any concerns and given that neither party raised any objection to the interpretation as a whole, I was satisfied that the applicant and the interpreter understood each other and that the evidence was properly and competently interpreted.

33. In order to accommodate the delay caused by the interpreter issues, the timetable had to be re-adjusted and it was necessary for the first witness, Ms Gorman, to give her evidence before the applicant. The second witness, Mr Goldring, gave his evidence on the third day. Further, in order to ensure that the applicant felt comfortable and at ease, and following a request made on behalf of the applicant in regard to special measures, the courtroom was arranged so that I sat on the same level as him. Regular breaks were taken, approximately every 45 minutes, for at least 10 to 15 minutes each time, and the applicant was made fully aware that he could request further breaks if needed. I was satisfied that every effort was made to ensure that he felt as comfortable as possible in the circumstances.

34. The oral evidence is summarised as follows.

Oral Evidence

Katy Gorman

35. Ms Gorman gave her evidence via video link. She adopted her statement as her evidence and was cross-examined by Mr Campbell. She said that she still taught the applicant once a week. She said that in the 5 years in which she had been teaching at the college she had only had one other age disputed student in her class. It was only students aged 16 to 18 years, and those who had turned 19 during the academic year, in the building where she taught. Those aged 19 and above were in a different building. She was aware of students whose age was determined by the Tribunal as over 19 moving to the other building but not amongst her own pupils. Ms Gorman explained what it was about the applicant’s behaviour that made her conclude that he was not older than the cohort she taught and what it was about older students that identified them as being older, including their attitude towards the teachers and their engagement in their studies and in games. She found the boredom exhibited by the older students when playing games was a ‘red flag’, whereas that was absolutely not the case with the applicant. She accepted that it was possible for a student, if older than claimed, to be imitating the peer group, and that students who were vulnerable owing to being in a strange country and not speaking the language could appear younger than they were, but she said there were clear differences in their attitude to learning. She had never had any suspicion that the applicant was imitating the rest of his peer group.

The Applicant

36. The applicant confirmed his date of birth as 20 June 2005 and he adopted his two witness statements as his evidence in chief. He said that he had difficulty understanding parts of what the interpreter said at the brief enquiry as he had a different accent and used different words. He did not ask for a different interpreter as he was not aware that he was entitled to do so. When cross-examined by Mr Campbell the applicant said that when he was 15 years of age his mother got him a cake for his birthday which was why he remembered his birthday. He came home with his father in the evening and his mother had the cake for him with sweet drinks. That was the first time she had got him a cake. His mother had told him his birthdays previously but he remembered that one in particular because it was the first time they had celebrated it like that. He did not know what was so special about that particular birthday that made his mother celebrate it in that way. The same happened for his 16th birthday and his 17th birthday. His parents did the same for his brother and that was how he knew his brother’s birthday. The applicant said that his father took him with him when he went to do his farming work from when he was young, but he could not remember the age. When he got a bit older he would help his father with the farming work. His brother came as well sometimes. The applicant said that he would go with his father every day except on Fridays when his father went to the mosque.

37. The applicant said that there were about 150 to 200 houses in his village. There were other children in the village but he did not play with them as he did not go to school and he was with his father on the farm all day from early until late. He needed to be with his father to help him as his father had a disability in his leg. Mr Campbell asked the applicant about his registration document, the ‘surat-qaid’, which he said his father had told him was held by the village mukhtar. He had never seen the document himself and he did not know if his family could get a copy of the document if they wanted to. The applicant confirmed that he still had no contact with his family. When asked whether he had been offered the Red Cross tracing services he said that he went once with his support worker but the organisation was not open. He did not know his home address in Syria. They did not have house numbers like here. He only knew the name of the village. When asked about the time he was asked to join the army, the applicant said that one day his father told him that the YPG had asked him if he would join them. His father said that he would have to kill people if he joined them and he was too young for that. The YPG would have got his details from the village mukhtar because he was getting close to the age when they would ask him to join. The applicant explained that before they take people by force the YPG would ask them first to join them and if they refused after they turned 18 they would use force. Sometimes they did that before a person turned 18.

38. The applicant confirmed that he attended the mosque in the UK. He used to go in Syria when there was a speech by a mullah on a Friday but he could not remember at what age he started attending, maybe 7. He remembered his father telling him that he was ready to learn how to pray. The applicant said that he had fasted many times in his life for Ramadan. When he was a child he would fast, but not every day, and then when he was 15 he started fasting every day. He had fasted for the full fast twice in Syria and twice in the UK. When asked about the brief enquiry, the applicant said that the social workers had told him that they could not decide his age at that moment. With regard to shaving, he said that when he was living in the hotel he did not have a beard and only a bit of hair for sideburns. He currently shaved whenever he had his hair cut, which was about every 2 weeks. When asked by the social workers when he started shaving he had said that he could not remember. He could not remember if they were asking for a specific date when he started shaving. The only reasons they gave for doubting his age was that they said he had wrinkles on his face, which he did not. He had been struggling to sleep when he was in the hotel because he was scared as the others were older than him, and they would look at him when they were eating. He was sleeping much better now. His friend Peshwar helped him when he was at the hotel as he felt scared to go out by himself, but now he was able to do so and he used public transport every day to go to college. He was still in contact with Peshwar, by telephone, but did not know why Peshwar was not able to come to give evidence in the Tribunal.

39. The applicant confirmed that he lived alone in an apartment but that there were other young people living in the same building about the same age as him. He was now able to cook for himself although he had never cooked in Syria and did not know how to. He had never been shopping or bought anything himself in Syria as his parents did that. His father used to pay all the bills. He never handled money himself in Syria. He found it difficult managing money in the UK and paying his own bills. He cleaned the apartment himself and had learned how to keep it clean and tidy. He had a hoover but had previously had to borrow one. He did his own laundry and was given advice about washing his clothes and bedding at a high temperature. He had had a rash but did not initially go to the doctor as he did not know how to. He had since been 3 times when his support worker arranged the appointments. He was concerned that his hair was falling out and had not seen a doctor about it. He did not agree with Mr Campbell that that was due to age. When asked why, when he was caught smoking he had initially denied it, the applicant said that he had thought he was being asked if he was smoking every day which he was not. He stopped smoking when he was told to. As for social media, the applicant said that he did not currently have any accounts. He had an Instagram account when he was in the hotel but he had never posted anything on it and was not in contact with anyone on it. He was no longer able to access the account. He did not know why the social workers notes said that he was active on social media as he was not.

Rory Goldring

40. Mr Goldring gave his evidence before me, via video link. He adopted his statement as his evidence and was cross-examined by Mr Campbell. He said that he had met the applicant on the 2 occasions of the bicycle rides, when he had been the bicycle group leader, and on one further occasion last week. The groups of people on the bicycle rides were usually aged between 20 and 50 but on the occasion the applicant came he was part of an age disputed group. The groups were of all different nationalities. He spoke to the applicant in a café during a break for about 10 to 15 minutes and he also saw him interact with the others in the group. He noticed how the others took on a caring role towards the applicant and he gave an example of a Sudanese man who was about 40 years of age who acted paternally to the applicant. It was not just because the applicant was new, but it was because they thought he was significantly younger. Mr Goldring said that the shyness and timidity exhibited by the applicant was very different to that of an adult who was new to the group and he had experience of that from observing the hundreds of people who came through the cycling group. The applicant definitely appeared younger than the others in the group.

41. That completed the oral evidence. Both parties then made submissions.

Submissions

42. Both parties had produced skeleton arguments prior to the hearing and both relied on their skeleton arguments.

The Respondent

43. Mr Campbell submitted that the case turned on credibility and that the applicant’s credibility was undermined in several respects including his conflicting evidence as to whether or not he could contact, or wanted to have contact with, his family in Syria, the conflicting evidence about whether he was active on social media and the conflicting evidence about whether or not he was in contact with Peshwar. Mr Campbell submitted that little weight should be given to the opinion evidence in regard to the applicant’s age. With regard to Mr Goldring’s evidence, he submitted that the reasons given for considering the applicant to be younger could equally apply to the fact that he was new to the cycling group and was a vulnerable person in a strange country with no English. Further, Mr Goldring had only seen the applicant on two occasions prior to the meeting last week and had only had one 10 to 15 minute conversation with him. As for the statements from Peshwar, they were of limited weight as he was not available to be cross-examined and the assertions made in the statements were vague. Mr Campbell submitted that the statement from Helene Santamera should be disregarded as she had subsequently clarified that it was not the policy of the Red Cross to give statements and she should not, therefore, have given the statement. In any event the statement was of limited weight as she was not available to be cross-examined and the assertions made in the statement were vague. The same applied to the statement of Anca Enache-Stephan. As for Ms Gorman’s evidence, Mr Campbell submitted that it was not surprising that the applicant behaved the same as his peers as he was in a class of 16 to 18 year olds. There was no opportunity for him to interact with the older pupils as they were in a different building. The shyness and timidity identified by the witnesses could be reflective of the applicant’s personality as well as the situation in which he found himself in a new country, rather than a reflection of his young age.

44. Mr Campbell submitted that the applicant’s account of the two social workers conducting the brief enquiry telling him that they had not reached a decision on his age and not providing information on his entitlement to challenge the decision was inconsistent with their record that they had reached a decision and that they had advised him that he could challenge the decision. The social workers’ record should be preferred to the applicant’s and that was a matter which adversely affected the applicant’s credibility and showed that he was not being frank. Although much was made of the applicant not having understood the interpreter, it was of note that he had confirmed at the beginning of the interview that he understood him. There was nothing to suggest that the applicant was unable to communicate with the interpreter.

45. Mr Campbell submitted that the applicant was not credible in regard to his account of his age. There was a lack of detail given for the reasons why he knew his birthday and a lack of detail about what happened on his 15th birthday. Contrary to the situation in the case of SP (JR-2023-LON-001584), which Mr Jagadesham was relying upon, there was not a ring of truth in this applicant’s account and the account had the appearance of being fabricated. There was no reason given as to why the applicant’s parents only started celebrating his birthday when he was 15. His account of going to the mosque and working with his father did not assist in ascertaining his age. The only matter which possibly assisted was in regard to his evidence about when he started fasting for Ramadan, but that evidence only came about latterly and in response to direct questions. It was not credible that the applicant could not recall when he started shaving when it had only happened earlier that year when he was 17. The evidence about the applicant’s life skills, including cooking and budgeting, managing money and having cupboards full of food, keeping his room clean and tidy and borrowing a hoover, all pointed to him being a mature person. His account about being caught smoking and having denied smoking, was inconsistent and lacking in credibility.

46. Mr Campbell submitted in conclusion that the applicant was the age given by the age assessors, but that at the very least he was older than the age he claimed to be.

The Applicant

47. Mr Jagadesham submitted that the applicant’s evidence about the first time he celebrated his birthday and how he knew his date of birth had a ring of truth about it. There were other time-lines that assisted the applicant’s case, including when he started fasting for Ramadan, the fact that it had been his parents who were responsible for cooking, buying his clothes and managing the money in Syria whilst he was supported to learn those life skills for himself in the UK, as well as the forced recruitment issue. There was nothing inconsistent in the applicant’s account of when he started shaving, whether or not he wanted to trace his parents and whether he was active on social media. The suggestion that he was lying about what he recalled from the brief enquiry assessment should be rejected. With regard to the applicant’s account of smoking, the fact that he stopped smoking when told to do so was a childlike reaction.

48. With regard to the brief enquiry, Mr Jagadesham submitted that the report was undermined by the fact that the applicant was not given an opportunity to respond to the social workers’ concerns, that the report provided very little upon which to rely as to the applicant being 28 years and that the social workers’ conclusion was in stark contrast to the views of everyone else. He submitted that the specific features of the applicant’s appearance upon which they relied had been found in other cases to be unreliable, and he also relied upon the observations made by HHJ Pearce, in his judgment cited as R (on the application of MA) v Liverpool City Council [2023] EWHC 359 (Admin), in which he declined to set aside HHJ Davies’ order granting interim relief. Mr Jagadesham submitted that there was no substantive basis given by the social workers for their conclusion that the applicant was 28 years of age. He submitted that the social workers had simply adopted the date of birth given by the Home Office, as in the case of SP, and he submitted that little weight should be given to their brief enquiry report. Mr Jagadesham then went on to refer to the evidence which supported the applicant’s claimed age and he relied upon the evidence of Ms Gorman and Mr Goldring and the statements of Peshwar Sado, Anca Enache-Stephan and Helene Santamero. He submitted that the totality of the evidence showed that the applicant had given a credible account of his age and that he was the age he claimed to be.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

49. The legislative framework within which this case is to be considered is well-established and there was no disagreement between the parties on this. It is not, therefore necessary to set out relevant authorities at length. In brief, therefore, I set out the following principles.

50. Where the age assessment of the local authority is in dispute, it is for the court or Tribunal to reach its own assessment of age, as a matter of fact (R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council) [2009] UKSC 8).

51. The various authorities make it clear that there is no burden of proof in such cases. In R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590 the Court held that the application of a legal burden of proof was an incorrect approach to adopt:

“[23] …Where the issue is whether the claimant is a child for the purposes of the Children Act it seems to me that the application of a legal burden is not the correct approach. There is no hurdle which the claimant must overcome. The court will decide whether, on a balance of probability, the claimant was or was not at the material time a child. The court will not ask whether the local authority has established on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was an adult; nor will it ask whether the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that he is a child”.

52. In R (on the application of AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 the Tribunal made general observations about the impact of evidence of various sorts and from various sources, concluding that

“[15] …almost all evidence of physical characteristics is likely to be of very limited value”,

“ [19] … So far as demeanour is concerned, it seems to us that there may be value to be obtained from observations of demeanour and interaction with others made over a long period of time by those who have opportunity to observe an individual going about his ordinary life. But we find it difficult to see that any useful observations of demeanour or social interaction or maturity can be made in the course of a short interview between an individual and a strange adult”

and

“[20] The asserted expertise of a social worker conducting an interview is not in our judgement sufficient to counteract those difficulties. A person such as a teacher or even a family member, who can point to consistent attitudes, and a number of supporting instances over a considerable period of time, is likely to carry weight that observations made in the artificial surroundings of an interview cannot carry.”

53. At [21] of MVN v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC 1942, Picken J referred to the ADCS Age Assessment Guidance of October 2015:
“The Merton guidelines have also been reflected in the 'Practice Guidelines on Assessing Age' as developed for local authorities by the London Boroughs of Hillingdon and Croydon. That document sets out the relevant principles, as helpfully summarised by Miss Luh in her opening skeleton argument, without objection from Miss Screeche-Powell, as follows:
(1) The assessment must be a holistic one and must start with an open mind, with no imposition on the child to prove his age to the assessing social workers.
(2) Physical appearance and demeanour are notoriously unreliable factors not determinative of age.
(3) Cultural, ethnic and racial context of the young person being assessed must be considered as these may reflect in their presentation as well as their descriptions of their lives.
(4) General credibility is not to be determinative of age. It is more likely that a young person who tells a consistent account of his life which supports his claimed age will be the age he claims to be. Conversely, young people may lie for reasons unrelated to age but related to their claims for protection or the reasons they had to leave their country of origin.
(5) The child should be afforded the benefit of the doubt where evidence can tip one way or the other.”
and went on to say at [27] that:

“It would, therefore, appear that the primary focus is on the credibility of the person's evidence concerning his or her age, but that it is permissible to have regard to credibility more generally provided that, in looking at credibility more generally, the primary focus to which I have referred is not forgotten.”

54. In the case of HAM, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924, Mr Justice Swift referred to the leading case in age assessment, B, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689, and said as follows:
“10. Overall, several important matters can be taken from the judgment in Merton. First, when it is necessary to determine whether a person is a child (i.e. under 18 years old) for the purposes of the 1989 Act, there is no burden of proof, and so no assumption either way. Rather, the assessment required must be undertaken on its own terms. Second, the assessment decision must be made based on reasonable enquiry – the local authority must take the steps reasonable in the case in hand to obtain the information needed to take the decision it is required to take. What this requires will depend on the circumstances of the case. Stanley Burnton J recognised that there may be occasions when a decision that meets the requirement for fairness can be taken based on evidence of appearance and demeanour alone (see his judgment at paragraph 27). However, he also recognised that such occasions are likely to be rare, and that when the person being assessed might appear to be of an age close to 18 (say between 16-20), fairness might ordinarily require the decision-maker to make further enquiries, either through an interview with the person to obtain his history, or otherwise (see his judgment at paragraph 28).
11. Third, when such an interview or other form of enquiry was undertaken it must be undertaken fairly. One matter was emphasised. If the person's credibility was an issue that should be made clear and should be dealt with head on during the investigation process. In cases where the local authority was minded to conclude the person claiming to be a child was lying, that provisional view and the reasons for it should be explained to him and he should have an opportunity to respond before a final decision was taken.
12.Fourth, that although there may be a range of things that a public authority might do to ensure the procedure followed was fair, those matters would not be requirements of fairness in every case. This category included matters such as whether the assessment be conducted by one social worker or two; whether a medical opinion or information from other professionals such as resident social workers or teachers may be appropriate; whether the assessment should be completed during a single interview or be undertaken over a more extended period; whether there should be verbatim notes of interviews; whether when an interpreter was required it was necessary for him to be present in person rather than by phone or video call.
13.The judgment in Merton did not rule out the possibility that on the facts of other cases some or other of these measures might be requirements of fairness. However, it is equally clear that Stanley Burnton J did not equate the legal requirement for any fair procedure with any sort of checklist. Fairness in this context, as in any other, is a matter of substance not simple form.”
DISCUSSION

55. This is a case where the applicant claims to know his exact age and date of birth but has not been able to produce any documents showing either, such as a passport, identity card or birth certificate, and relies instead upon his own account of how he knows his age and date of birth together with the supporting testimony of 2 witnesses and written statements from 3 other witnesses. The focus is therefore largely upon credibility, particularly the credibility of the applicant's evidence concerning his age, and I have due regard to the principles outlined in MVN v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC 1942 and extracted above in that respect. I also take account of the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No. 2 of 2010: Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Appellant Guidance and give due allowance for the fact that many child asylum seekers and victims of trafficking will have problems in presenting a coherent account of their personal history and travel to this country.

56. The applicant has the benefit of positive findings and observations made by HHJ Pearce in his judgment in R (on the application of MA) v Liverpool City Council [2023] EWHC 359 (Admin), in which he maintained, and refused an application to set aside, a previous grant of interim relief made by HHJ Davies. Although the issue before HHJ Pearce was not the same issue as that before me, and a lower threshold was to be met in the proceedings before him, it involved an assessment of much the same evidence as that before me. The evidence before HHJ Pearce consisted of the brief enquiry as well as, for the applicant, the statements of Mr Sado, Ms Santamera and Mr Goldring, which he found to be consistent and supportive of the applicant’s case. He rejected any suggestion that those third parties were partisan such that their opinions ought to be ignored and he considered that Ms Santamera and Mr Goldring were both professionals who had experience of working with young people and who made observations that appeared reasonable in the light of their interaction with the applicant. HHJ Pearce considered that the age assessment process followed by the 2 social workers for the brief enquiry might be criticised because it placed too great emphasis on physical appearance, that the other factors said to be supportive of the conclusion as to the applicant’s age were not identified in the brief enquiry form, and that it was surprising that assessors acting independently should come to the same conclusion as to the applicant’s age as had been initially reached by the Home Office. HHJ Pearce also considered that the additional points made by the respondent (that the applicant had given inconsistent or vague accounts as to his age, given an inconsistent account as to shaving and given an implausible account of being asked to join the army when, on his own case, he was not yet 18 years old) were unpersuasive.

57. I have had the benefit of further evidence in support of the applicant’s case, additional to that before HHJ Pearce, having heard live testimony from Ms Gorman and Mr Goldring and having a statement from a further witness, Ms Enache-Stephan. I have also had the benefit of hearing from the applicant himself. Having had regard to all that evidence I am entirely in agreement with HHJ Pearce as to the persuasive nature of the supporting evidence, and the weaknesses in the respondent’s evidence and the respondent’s observations about the applicant’s evidence.

58. The assessment of the 2 social workers in the brief enquiry is, in my view, particularly unsatisfactory. Although it was made clear by Swift J in HAM that it was not always necessary for there to be a full Merton-compliant age assessment, with an appropriate adult, face-to-face interpreter and a separate minded-to session, he emphasised the need for the process by which the person was age assessed to be fair in substance. The brief enquiry in this case was cursory, the social workers’ conclusions lack proper reasoning and are uninformative and the applicant was given a limited opportunity to address matters which the social workers appeared to rely upon in reaching their decision (although those matters are far from clear). The conclusion in the report gives the impression that the social workers simply adopted the assessment of age made by the immigration official during the applicant’s asylum interview without any proper engagement with the process themselves. That is apparent from the first paragraph of their conclusion. They went on to state in the conclusion that the outcome of the assessment was not just based upon physical appearance but on the information provided in the assessment, but they provided little or no explanation as to which information that was.

59. In so far as the social workers’ assessment appears to have been based largely on the applicant’s appearance and demeanour, those are factors which have been recognised as being notoriously unreliable in determining age (see MVN v London Borough of Greenwich). Their observations in that respect were, furthermore, at odds with, and in stark contrast to, those of third parties who had spent significantly more time with the applicant, so much so as to make one wonder if they were actually observing the same person. They recorded that the applicant had broad shoulders, a defined beard line across his face, appeared significantly older than his claimed age and had a deep voice, aged skin and a prominent Adam’s apple. However Ms Santamera said that, a month later, he visually presented as a teenager, that he spoke with a tone of voice which was slightly high as one might expect from a teenager and that she saw no defined beard line in his appearance; Ms Enache-Stephan considered that he presented the same as his 16-18 year old peers in terms of physical appearance; and Mr Goldring said that he appeared young in his facial features, that he had no obvious beard line and that his body form appeared relatively slight like a teenager. Certainly, having heard the applicant giving oral evidence over a period of several hours, I did not myself observe that he had a deep voice. It is of note, in addition, that the assessors gave no indication of having engaged with the applicant’s explanation that his physical appearance may look older due to his harsh life nor, as Mr Jagadesham submitted, did they consider the effect on his skin of having worked outdoors in farming since a young age.

60. Aside from physical appearance, the assessors stated in the section entitled ‘minded to session’ that one of the reasons they did not accept the applicant’s claimed age was that the timelines he had provided led to him being an adult. However they did not explain how that was the case and, as HHJ Pearce observed in his judgment, that required some speculation. They also said that the applicant had confirmed the date of birth attributed to him by the immigration officer at his asylum interview. However they ignored the fact that he had given his date of birth as 20 June 2005 at the beginning of the interview. Furthermore, as Mr Jagadesham submitted, the brief enquiry, whilst referring to matters taken against the applicant, makes no mention at all of relevant parts of his evidence recorded in the handwritten notes which in fact support his account of his age, such as his reply when asked if he was married, “I am still a kid, how can I be married.”

61. I accept, from the details provided at the end of the brief enquiry report, that the 2 social workers who carried out the assessment had both worked with asylum seekers and in particular unaccompanied asylum-seeking children for some years and had been trained in conducting brief enquiries and age assessments, and that at least one of them had undertaken numerous brief enquiries and age assessments in the past, and I am satisfied that they are both experienced social workers with the relevant experience and skills for undertaking the task of assessing age. As such, their views must carry weight. Nevertheless that weight is reduced by the fact that their evidence was untested. It is also substantially reduced by the above mentioned concerns. As Mr Jagadesham submitted, the social workers provided little by way of a reliable substantive basis for concluding that the applicant was the age they concluded and I did not find their report to be a satisfactory basis for concluding that he is the age they assessed.

62. Aside from the brief enquiry, the only other evidence which was available to support the respondent’s case was the assessment made by the immigration officer who interviewed the applicant in relation to his asylum claim. However I give that assessment no weight since there is no information to suggest that the immigration officer had any experience or training in age assessment. Neither were any reasons given for the conclusion reached, the assumption therefore being that the assessment was based purely upon the applicant’s appearance, in itself a notoriously unreliable basis for an assessment, as already stated.

63. In the absence of any other evidence from the respondent, Mr Campbell sought to challenge the credibility of the account given by the applicant for his age and the weight to be given to the third party evidence.

64. Mr Campbell considered the applicant’s credibility to be undermined by conflicting evidence as to whether or not he could contact, or wanted to have contact with, his family in Syria; conflicting evidence about whether he was active on social media; conflicting evidence about whether or not he was in contact with Peshwar; a claim of the social workers not having reached a decision on his age which was inconsistent with their record; an account of how he knew his birthday which had the appearance of being fabricated; an implausible claim not to know when he started shaving; and an inconsistent account of when he was being caught smoking. However I found nothing significantly or materially inconsistent in the applicant’s evidence in those matters.

65. Mr Campbell submitted that the applicant’s evidence in his second statement, that he wanted to have contact with his family, was in conflict with the record in the local authority care plan notes referring to him having declined Red Cross tracing, suggesting that adverse conclusions should be drawn from his attempt to distance himself from his family. However other records, from Coram (page 447) and from the local authority (page 458), refer to the applicant wanting to be in contact with his family, as consistent with the claim in his statement, and as consistent with the social workers’ handwritten notes from the brief enquiry referring to him getting upset when talking about the lack of contact with his family. I do not agree with Mr Campbell that there is anything adverse to be drawn in that respect. Likewise I do not consider there to be anything conflicting in the local authority’s note of the applicant being active on social media, when his own evidence was that he had previously had access to an Instagram account. I do not agree with Mr Campbell that there were adverse inferences to be drawn from the applicant’s inability to recall a definitive decision made by the social workers at the brief enquiry when the notes and record show the inadequacy of their reasoning and the absence of a clear conclusion as to his assessed age. I reject any suggestion that the applicant was being dishonest in that regard when at the most he was simply confused about the outcome.

66. Similarly I do not consider that there was anything inconsistent in the applicant’s evidence about his recollection of when he started shaving or that anything material arises from his evidence about his reaction to having been caught smoking. I agree with Mr Jagadesham that of more relevance is the fact that the applicant stopped smoking when he was told that it was bad for him and not permitted at his age, which is in itself a somewhat child-like reaction. As for the applicant’s account of how he knew his birthday, Mr Campbell submitted that the account of celebrating his 15th birthday had the appearance of a fabricated story. However the applicant’s account has consistently been that he celebrated his 15th birthday with a cake and a sweet drink from his mother. The social workers’ handwritten notes of the applicant’s account show some lack of clarity in his evidence, but he made it clear that he was 15 in 2020 and not 10 years of age which would have had made little sense in any event, and I found nothing inherently implausible about that account.

67. Overall, having heard the applicant give his evidence over several hours I found nothing which led me to believe that he was fabricating his evidence or that he was attempting to deceive the court about his age and his knowledge of his age. He had consistently stated his date of birth as 20 June 2005, throughout his dealings with the Home Office and the local authority and during the proceedings before me. At its lowest I would say that the applicant’s own evidence was neutral and somewhat lacking detail, but I do not consider there to be anything adverse to be drawn from that.

68. The evidence from the applicant’s supporting witnesses was, on the other hand, detailed and highly persuasive. I remind myself of the views expressed in R (on the application of AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 as to the evidential value of the testimony of people such as teachers who can point to consistent attitudes over a considerable period of time, as opposed to the artificial surroundings of an interview. I turn next to that evidence.

69. As mentioned above at [56], HHJ Pearce considered the statements of Mr Sado, Ms Santamera and Mr Goldring to be consistent and supportive of the applicant’s case and he rejected any suggestion that they were partisan. I bear in mind that the weight to be given to the written statements of the witnesses who did not appear at the hearing is reduced, to the extent that it has not been tested by way of cross-examination. That applies to the statements of Mr Sado, Ms Santamera and Ms Enache-Stephan. Nevertheless, taken in the context of the evidence as a whole, and noting the consistency of their observations with those of the two live witnesses, I do find their evidence to be persuasive. I do not disregard Ms Santamera’s statement, as Mr Campbell asked me to, despite the policy of the British Red Cross to refuse requests for statements. Ms Santamera clarified, in her subsequent email of 22 March 2024, that the statement was provided at a time when she was unaware of that policy, and in any event it could be taken into account, together with her supporting letter of 13 December 2022, as a factual account of the number of times she met the applicant, his behaviour and interaction with the other young people, and his choice of Christmas gift (a teddy bear). Ms Enache-Stephan, like Ms Santamera, had met the applicant several times – in her case in the capacity of ESOL teacher – and, like Ms Santamera, she found that he was not at all out of place in the group of 16 to 18 year olds and that the assessment of his age as 29 years was unusual.

70. The live testimony of Ms Gorman and Mr Goldring, taken together with their written statements was, as I have already said, highly persuasive. That is particularly the case with Ms Gorman who had known and observed the applicant over an extended period of time, having taught him maths once a week since September 2023, and who was an impressive witness. When asked by Mr Campbell to provide specific examples of the applicant’s behaviour which led her to believe that he was the same age as his cohort of 16 to 18 year olds, she was clearly able to do so, explaining how he interacted with her as a teacher in a way that an adult did not and that he engaged in chat and banter with his class-mates and participated in games in a manner consistent with his age. She was adamant that she had never had cause to suspect the applicant of imitating his peer group and that she had never had any reason to suspect that he was anything other than his stated age. Whilst Mr Goldring had a more limited interaction with the applicant, having met him only twice prior to a meeting the previous week, he was also able to give specific examples of the applicant’s behaviour which led him to believe that he was the age claimed. Mr Goldring was quite clear, from his extensive experience of hundreds of people coming through his cycling group, that the shyness the applicant exhibited was very different to the shyness of adult participants who were new to the group and was very much indicative of his young age.

71. In addition to the weighty evidence of the witnesses there were other aspects of the evidence which, in my view, are supportive of the applicant’s claimed age. Mr Jagadesham pointed to some time-lines which supported the applicant’s account including in particular his evidence about when he started fasting during Ramadan which was consistent with his age. Indeed Mr Campbell accepted that that was the stronger part of his evidence. Whilst the brief enquiry assessors appeared to consider that the applicant’s account of military service was not consistent with his claimed age, (although they did not expressly state as such, calling for some speculation as to what they actually meant when referring to time-lines), it seems to me that his account was entirely consistent with the background evidence about forced recruitment into the army. The applicant’s evidence at the brief enquiry was that it was the YPG’s first approach to his father about joining the army that led to his father deciding he should leave the country. That was consistent with his account at the hearing that approaches would be made prior to the age of 18 and that forced recruitment would then take place subsequently. In addition, the applicant’s account of never having had to cook, to buy clothes for himself or to manage money, and to being dependent upon his parents for such matters, were all consistent with him being a child prior to leaving Syria.

72. It was Mr Campbell’s submission that the applicant’s life skills, including his ability to keep his flat clean and tidy, to keep his cupboards full of food, to cook for himself, and to manage money and paying bills, were indicative of him being independent and mature and of either having lied about not having performed these tasks himself in Syria or that it was owing to his level of maturity that he managed to develop the skills so quickly in the UK. However, on the contrary, the local authority care records show that the applicant required considerable support to reach that level of independence. That is indeed confirmed in the support summary from his support worker Eve Shipperlee (page 316). I find nothing in those records to be inconsistent with the applicant’s claimed age and, having read the case notes, consider there to be nothing therein to suggest that the social workers and support workers who assisted the applicant had any doubts themselves about his age. I have regard in particular to the reference in the care notes, at page 324, to the applicant showing the social worker his stuffed toys, which is clearly more consistent with him being a younger age than an adult of the age assigned to him. That also reflects the observations made by Ms Santamera about the applicant’s choice of Christmas gift, a matter she considered to be consistent with a teenager.

73. Drawing all of this together, what I have before me on the one hand is the unreasoned opinion of an immigration official whose experience in age assessment is unknown and a brief enquiry report which appears simply to adopt that initial assessment and which in itself lacks proper reasoning and is thus of limited assistance, and on the other the opinions of 5 witnesses who had personal interactions with the applicant and who provided detailed reasons for their opinions, as well as time-lines consistent with the applicant’s claimed age and a credible account from the applicant himself. Taking all of that into account and doing the best I can with the evidence, I am satisfied that the overall evidence is supportive of the applicant being the age he claims to be and having the date of birth he claims.
DECISION

74. I find that the applicant was born on 20 June 2005 and is currently 18 years of age and I make a declaration to that effect.

75. In so far as I have accepted the applicant’s claimed age and date of birth, the applicant has succeeded in this judicial review claim.