Tribunal decisions

The decision

JR-2024-LON-003183

In the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Judicial Review

In the matter of an application for Judicial Review

The King on the application of

M M
(by his litigation friend Taran Cheeman)

Applicant

and

Westminster City Council

Respondent

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision

UPON the Upper Tribunal handing down judgment in the above proceedings

AND having considered the costs submissions made by both parties

Order by Upper Tribunal Judge Canavan:

IT IS DECLARED THAT:

1. The applicant is allocated a date of birth of 25 April 2009.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

2. The application for judicial review is allowed for the reasons given in the written judgment.

3. The respondent’s age assessment dated 10 June 2024 is quashed.

4. The respondent shall provide the applicant with support under the Children Act 1989 in accordance with his declared age.

Court of Appeal

5. There is no application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. There are no arguable errors of law in the decision that would justify granting permission to appeal. As such, permission is refused.

Costs

6. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s reasonable costs of the claim on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.

7. There shall be detailed assessment of the applicant’s publicly funded costs.

8. No schedule of costs appears to have been produced by the applicant. It is not possible to know whether the request for an order for payment on account of £85,000 (said to represent 50% of the overall costs) within 14 days is reasonable. In the absence of a schedule of costs, and even taking into account the fact that expert evidence was produced for the hearing, the suggested total for costs appears to be excessive given the relatively straight forward issues and the procedural history of the case. For this reason, the Upper Tribunal refuses to make a costs order in the terms suggested by the applicant.

9. The respondent agrees to make a payment on account in the sum of 50% of the applicant’s reasonable costs within 21 days of receipt of the applicant’s schedule of costs.

Signed: M. Canavan
Upper Tribunal Judge Canavan

Dated: 04 November 2025

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): 05/11/2025

Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:

Case No: JR-2024-LON-003183
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR

04 November 2025
Before:

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

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

Between:

THE KING
on the application of

M M
(by his litigation friend Taran Cheeman)
Applicant
- and -

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms M. Butler
(instructed by Leigh Day Solicitors), for the applicant

Ms E. Godfrey
(instructed by the Bi-Borough Legal Services) for the respondent

Hearing date: 24 & 25 June 2025

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Judge Canavan:

1. ‘M’ says that he was born on 25 April 2009. If this date of birth is correct, M was 15 years old when he arrived in the UK on 07 June 2024. This would make him 16 years old at the date of the hearing.

2. Westminster City Council conducted a Brief Enquiry on 10 June 2024 (‘the first age assessment’). The notes record that M told the assessors that his date of birth was 15 May 2009. The age assessment concluded that he was older than his claimed age of 15 years old and was likely to be 24 years old. The reasons were that M ‘appeared older’ than his claimed age because his ‘mature physical demeanour, defined bone structure and jawline.’ He also had a ‘visible receding hairline and a deep voice.’ It seems that no date of birth was allocated. This assessment would make him 25 years old at the date of the hearing.

3. Different dates of birth are recorded in the Home Office documents relating to the asylum application made on 11 June 2024, the day after the first age assessment. Initially M’s date of birth was recorded as 01 January 2000, but then an Assessing Officer’s Report dated 18 July 2024 recorded his probable date of birth as 15 May 2000. M says he did not tell the Home Office that he was 24 years old. This date of birth would make him 25 years old at the date of the hearing.

4. A further Brief Enquiry was conducted by Hammersmith and Fulham Council on 16 July 2024 because M was moved to adult NASS accommodation in that borough (‘the second age assessment’). In this assessment M said that his date of birth was 25 April 2009. By this stage M had been sent a photograph of a birth record from Sudan. The assessors found that there were inconsistencies in the information provided by M, which gave them cause to doubt the credibility of his account. The assessors came to the same conclusion as the social workers from Westminster City Council, finding that M was likely to be 24 years old.

5. M disagrees with the first age assessment of Westminster City Council and wants to challenge the decision. His lawyer helped him to make an application for judicial review. The initial reasons for challenging the decision argued that the process of age assessment was flawed. At a fact-finding hearing, the Upper Tribunal focusses on deciding what age M is likely to be. The fairness of the assessment might still be relevant to what weight should be given to the age assessment decision: see R (FZ) v LB Croydon [2011] EWCA Civ 59.

6. In a judicial review of an age assessment the Upper Tribunal is asked to look at the evidence produced by the young person and the evidence produced by the local authority before coming to a decision about the young person’s likely age: see R (A) v LB Croydon [2009] UKSC 8. The Upper Tribunal will assess all the evidence before deciding whether it is more likely than not that the young person is a child. It is an inquisitorial process where neither party has the burden of proof: see R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2012] PTSR 1235.

7. It is difficult to assess the exact age of a young person, especially if they are between the ages of 15-18 years old. There are no reliable medical or other scientific tests that will show a young person’s age with any certainty. A range of factors might need to be considered including the account given by the young person, their family and educational history, their ethnicity and cultural background, and to some extent their physical development, maturity and behaviour: see R (B) v LB Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin).

8. I am asked to consider M’s account, the evidence of those who have met him, the opinions of social workers, and other documentary evidence before me. I heard from the following people:

(i) ‘M’;

(ii) Warren Steventon, Allocated Social Worker (ASW);

(iii) Clare Aissa, UASC Officer for the Bi-Borough Virtual School;

9. In addition to the oral evidence, the documentary evidence includes photographs of documents that are said to be a Sudanese Civil Registration Certificate (CRC) and a birth certificate, an expert country report of Peter Verney, witness statements of Marcus Padraig Bara of the National Document Fraud Unit (NFDU), a medico-legal report by Dr O. Moghraby, as well as social media and other records.

10. Permission to bring judicial review proceedings was granted by David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge on 08 November 2024. The claim was transferred to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal made further directions for the filing of evidence and set a timetable for the preparation of the case.

11. I have considered all the documents filed and the oral evidence of the witnesses. I have also read and heard the arguments put forward by both parties. The oral evidence and submissions are a matter of record. I have considered the evidence as a whole and will refer to those aspects of the evidence that are material to the decision in my findings.

FINDINGS ON THE EVIDENCE

12. M produced photographs of documents that are said to be a birth certificate and a CRC issued in Sudan. If these photographs are found to be sufficiently reliable they are likely to be supportive of M’s stated date of birth. I will assess the evidence as a whole before coming to any conclusions as to the reliability of this evidence.

13. It is not correct to say, as it does in the applicant’s skeleton argument, that M has produced an authenticated birth certificate and CRC. The original documents have not been produced for expert witnesses to consider. All that M has been able to produce are fairly poor quality electronic photographs of two documents that are said to be of his birth certificate and CRC.

14. M says that he was able to speak to his mum on 20 June 2024 i.e. after the first age assessment but before the second age assessment. He told her that he needed evidence of his age. She was able to send him the photographs of the documents that she had in her possession. In his first witness statement dated 06 September 2024 M said that he accidentally deleted the message from his phone but later found a copy of the photographs in the deleted bin on his phone.

15. An image of a message that appears to be from Facebook Messenger has also been produced. It does not appear to be a screenshot from a Messenger screen itself so there is no surrounding context. The message is dated ‘20 June’ and seems to attach the photograph of the CRC. The message says ‘You have called [name]’. It is unclear whether this is a reference to M or his friend of the same first name who he now says was the one that sent him the document on Facebook Messenger on his mother’s behalf.

16. Further evidence has been produced from his friend’s Facebook account, which shows the same photo icon as in the message attaching the photograph. It is reasonable to infer from this that the image of the Facebook message may have come from M’s friend’s account. Other evidence produced at the hearing shows a photograph of M with his friend together in Sudan. His friend is identifiable from other images in print outs from his friend’s Facebook account. In the image, both boys have the appearance of being in their mid-teens and do not obviously look like adults. There seems to be no evidence to show when this photograph was taken. Additional social media disclosure contained in a supplementary bundle indicated that M’s friend’s account had the same profile photograph as the message that contained the photograph of the CRC.

17. However, one of the posts in his friend’s account from 23 December 2020 stated ‘Started new job at (Hacker+Trampling+Penetration+Encryption)’. The original copy of the post shows that after the Arabic text there is a long black icon that does not appear to have any particular meaning. It is simply unclear what that means or whether there was any encryption or other redaction of the post. Underneath, it appeared to show his location as ‘Oran, Algeria’.

Birth certificate

18. The photograph of the birth certificate is relatively clear. Texture and creases can be seen on the paper. However, it is not a complete photograph of the document. The top and bottom of the document are cut off (including a heading that is only partially visible). The standard format printed aspects of the document are in a mixture of English and Arabic. At the top left of the document appears to be a red wet ink stamp with the letter ‘B’ followed by a six digit reference number. The personal details have then been added by hand into the form in Arabic. On the line that says in English ‘Name of The Registrar’ there is what appears to be a rectangular purple wet ink stamp. On the bottom right hand corner there is a round watermark. On closer inspection this appears to be an electronic watermark from the translation service, Language Reach, which provides the date that the information on the photograph was translated. The date is consistent with the cover letter from the translation company.

19. The translation of the birth certificate records the province as ‘Nyala’ and the state as ‘South Darfur’. It then provides a serial number and page number. The date of birth is recorded as the 25 April 2009 both in words and numerals. The handwritten numerical date does give the impression of a hesitation in writing or a slight correction having been made. One of the Arabic numerals appears to be in a slightly heavier hand partially covering the next door numeral. It is not possible for me to know whether the Arabic numeral relates to the day, month, or year of birth. However, the full date is also written in words below this, which does not appear to have any corrections to it. I am satisfied that the slightly heavier character is just a minor correction in a handwritten document.

20. The name of the child is consistent with M’s first name, but does not given any other family names. It is a common name in Islamic societies. Although M’s full name has been recorded in different ways in various official documents completed in the UK, it is broadly consistent with him using his father’s name, which is recorded in the birth certificate. This is a common naming system in many countries. His mother’s name is also included in the document. The document records that it was issued on 15 August 2009, a few months after the date of birth.

21. Taking into account possible variations in transliteration, the names of M’s parents given on the birth certificate are broadly consistent with the names given to the social workers during the second age assessment. I bear in mind that by that time M already had copies of the birth certificate and CRC. Neither the first age assessment or the Home Office screening interview appeared to ask M for his parents’ details. It cannot see any earlier reference to their names that might pre-date the receipt of the photographs of the identity documents from Sudan.

Civil Registration Certificate

22. The photograph of the CRC is less clear. The image is quite dark and in places there is a shine on the laminate covering of the document that obscures the detail. It shows a photograph of an A4 document that appears to be laminated in plastic. The document has folds lengthways and crossways i.e. it has the appearance of use. It has official headings in English and Arabic with a crest at the top. On the left hand side the heading states in English: ‘Republic of Sudan, Ministry of Interior, Police Forces Headquarters, Passports and Civil Registration Corporation, Civil Registration Directorate General’.

23. Below the heading on the left is what appears to be a photograph. The image is not sufficiently clear to see whether a photograph is stuck onto the document or whether it is printed into the document. Nor is the photograph sufficiently clear to see any detail of the person who is pictured. However, it is plausible that the photograph might depict a child.

24. On the right hand side the printed information details are written in Arabic with western numerals for reference numbers and dates. The translation records the registration office as ‘Nyala Central Registration Centre’. The certificate was issued on 18 July 2022. If M’s stated date of birth is correct he would have been 13 years old at the date the CRC was issued. The appellant’s full name is recorded. The date of birth is recorded as ’25/4/2009’ in ‘South Darfur – Nyala North …’. The Home Office document examiner, Mr Bara noted that the numeral ‘9’ in the date of birth appeared to be in a slightly larger font than the other numerals, but I find it difficult to discern any noticeable difference in the font from the image contained in the bundle. The number becomes highly pixellated when that part of the electronic image is considered more closely.

25. The standard form information contained in this document only required the mother’s name. The name contained in the CRC is consistent with the name recorded in the birth certificate and given by the appellant during the second age assessment.

26. The information below the standard information is more difficult to discern due to the quality of the image and a glare from the laminate. The document appears to contain an official watermark. It also contains what appears to be a purple wet ink stamp, which has been translated to be from the Nyala Central Registry. The document also appears to contain the typed printed name of the officer who issued the document. Although the translation suggests that the printed information in the document also stated ‘signature’, I can see no written signature of the issuing officer on the face of the document as presented in the image. On the bottom left there appears to be further typewritten text in Arabic, which has not been translated, perhaps because it is so small to be illegible. On the bottom right hand side of the document is a square QR code. When the QR code is used, it provides the same 11 digit national ID number recorded in the body of the document.

Expert evidence

27. Mr Peter Verney and Mr Marcus Padraig Bara have been put forward as giving expert opinions in relation to these documents.

28. Peter Verney is a country expert who says that he worked in Sudan from 1977-1989 as a journalist, teacher, and aid and development worker. Since 1990 he has been the editor of Sudan Update, an independent monitoring and information service. He says that he keeps up to date with Sudanese affair on a daily basis. He outlines other experience in advising various NGOs and Parliamentary groups in relation to the situation in Sudan. It is likely that Mr Verney has an extensive network of contacts to draw on in Sudan, but he does not outline any further specific time spent in the country since 1989.

29. I acknowledge that Mr Verney is considered an expert in Sudanese affairs. He prepared two reports dated 05 September 2024 and 29 April 2025. The first thing to note is that Mr Verney himself acknowledges that he is not an expert in the forensic examination of documents. The expertise that he put forward to comment on the documents included the fact that he had seen hundreds of documents in cases where he had interviewed Sudanese asylum seekers and was in a position to consider their outward appearance and the means by which they were obtained. He also said that he had worked and engaged with the Sudanese civil administration for more than a decade in the country, but it seems from his biography that any face to face engagement with the civil administration in Sudan itself is likely to be extremely dated. Nothing in his report suggests that there had been any contact with the relevant records offices in Nyala.

30. Mr Verney said that he had also consulted with Sudanese professional colleagues in the UK who concurred with his opinion. The first was Dr Ahmed Idrees, who trained as a medical doctor in Sudan. The second is Mr Mohanad Hashim, a reporter for the BBC. The third is Mr Ahmed al-Makashfy, who qualified as a solicitor in Sudan. None of these people are said to have any expertise in forensic document examination either. At highest, the opinions of Mr Verney and his colleagues can only be seen as their observations relating to the consistency of the documents with similar Sudanese documents that they might have seen during the course of their work.

31. Mr Verney also purports to give his opinion as to M’s appearance and demeanour and likely age. This is even more outside his area of expertise. Expert witnesses should be careful not to offer opinions about matters that are not within the proper area of their expertise. Mr Verney is an expert on Sudanese political and cultural affairs, but has no expertise in age assessment. In so far as he can make observations about young people he might have seen during the course of his work interviewing asylum seekers and providing opinions relating to the situation in Sudan, those observations can be taken into account, but cannot be elevated to the level of an expert opinion as to a person’s likely age.

32. Mr Verney’s first report is dated 05 September 2024. In that report he said that he had studied the birth certificate and CRC and had consulted Sudanese colleagues who concurred with his opinion. He said that the appearance of the birth certificate was consistent with other documents he had seen. There was nothing on the face of the document to cause him to doubt its authenticity. It is normal practice for a birth certificate to be issued as an extract from the register of births. He explained that the method by which it was sent to M was plausible because the only way to send documents at the moment would be via the internet when it was available.

33. In relation to the CRC, Mr Verney said that the document was the most recent version of national identity papers issued in Sudan over the last 10 years. National registration is a country-wide requirement by the Interior Ministry. Again, he was able to say that there was nothing on the face of the document that might cause him to doubt its authenticity. The layout was comparable to other documents he had seen. The quality of the image meant that he was unable to comment on the type of paper used. He said that the Sudan state emblem of a bird was commonly used as a watermark on government documents. The date of issue, registration number and date of birth were written in western numerals. This was consistent with what he knew about recent known practice of the Sudanese administration.

34. Mr Verney went on to say that such documents could be obtained by bribing corrupt officials. Although this could happen on occasion, as far as he was aware, it was not a widespread issue. The cost of doing so is likely to be prohibitive to someone with M’s family background (M said that his parents are farmers).

35. Mr Verney referred to comments outlined in an email sent by Andy Campello Martin from the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB) on 23 August 2024. In that email he said that the birth certificate was sent to the NDFU for examination. At this stage, the source of the comments from the NDFU is unclear. The comments outlined in Mr Martin’s email were as follows:

‘- The document lacks the letterpress serial number in the top right corner.
• The English translation is missing from the left hand side of the document.
• The crest, top centre, lacks the detail expected.
• The document does not appear to be produced on the correct substrate.

I am not convinced that this is an original document as the overall design differs from the comparison I have used. In saying that, NDFU are not aware of the security procedures around the issuance or storage of the documents. Therefore my summary for my examination is inconclusive.’

36. In fact, it is unclear which of the two documents these comments were referring to. The email says that the comments related to the birth certificate but there is no crest shown in the photograph of that document and it clearly does have English translations on the left hand side of the document. The description contained in the comments cited in the email relates more closely to the CRC rather than the birth certificate.

37. In response, Mr Verney pointed out that the birth certificate did have a letterpress serial number. Unlike birth certificates, CRC documents do not tend to have English translations in the fields. There was insufficient detail in the photograph of the CRC to show the detail of the crest. The photograph was not clear enough to show what the substrate was inside the laminate covering.

38. Marcus Padraig Bara has worked at the Home Office since 2003 as an immigration officer. In 2010 he received specialist training in document examination from the NDFU. By 2014 one his duties was to examine passports and other identity documents for evidence of counterfeiting, forgery or unlawful alteration. Since January 2024 he has worked as a specialist document examiner in the NDFU. I am satisfied that he is an expert in forensic document examination.

39. Mr Bara prepared two witness statements dated 03 October 2024 and 11 October 2024. On 30 September 2024 the NDFU was sent the images of the Sudanese Civil Registration Certificate and the Sudanese birth certificate by a person from NAAB.

40. In his statement dated 03 October 2024, Mr Bara considered the two documents. In relation to the CRC he said that he was ‘able to access locally held information for comparison purposes.’ It is not clear what is meant by this. If he compared it with another example of a CRC no copy of the document that was used for comparison appears to have been attached to his statement. He pointed out that he could only comment on visual anomalies because he only had an image and not the original document.

41. Mr Bara made several observations about the CRC. He noted that the image quality was poor. The numeral nine (9) in the year of birth was in a different sized font to the rest of the numerals. He would have expected the numbers to be of a uniform font and size. The date of issue was in a different sized font to the national number and the date of birth. All the numbers in the comparison document were in a uniformed font and size. The crest at the top lacked detail albeit he recognised that the image was poor. It was not possible to state whether the mark that appeared to be an ink stamp was in fact a wet stamp or had been digitally produced. PDF documents were known to distort images and were therefore unreliable. In light of those observations, Mr Bara said that he was unable to say whether the document was likely to be a counterfeit or an original document. In relation to the CRC, his findings were ‘inconclusive.’

42. In relation to the birth certificate, Mr Bara considered the partial image of the document. Again, the assessment seems to have been done with reference to a comparison document, which does not appear to have been attached to the statement. Mr Bara found that the image of the birth certificate was only partial. It was presented in an unreliable PDF format. Again, Mr Bara could come to no conclusion one way or the other as to the authenticity of the birth certificate.

43. Mr Bara went on to comment on a number of observations that were said to have been made by Mr Verney in a report dated 31 July 2024. No copy of that document appears to be included in the bundle. Mr Bara prepared a supplementary statement on 11 October 2024, which just comprises of standard wording relating to the duties of experts giving evidence before the court, which were omitted from the first statement.

44. Mr Verney’s supplementary report is dated 29 April 2025. In that report he responds to some of the comments made by Mr Bara in his statement. With reference to the CRC he said that it was normal for such documents to be laminated in this way in Sudan. He said that it is worth bearing in mind that government officials who issued these documents were working in Arabic and English script, including numbers. Their aesthetic sense with regard to fonts and font sizes in English letters and numerals is not likely to be the same. For this reason, officials might not notice variations that a native English language speaker might amend.

45. With reference to the birth certificate, Mr Verney said that he had noted Mr Bara’s comments but considered that there was sufficient information on the partial document to be satisfied that it was an amateur photograph of a Sudanese birth certificate. Nothing in Mr Bara’s comments caused Mr Verney to change his view as to the likely authenticity of the documents.

46. Having considered this evidence I find that although Mr Verney is not an expert document examiner, as an expert on the country of Sudan, it is likely that he has seen many documents issued by the Sudanese authorities and is familiar with the appearance of common documents such as birth certificates and CRC documents. It seems that he has also shown the documents to Sudanese colleagues who, likewise, do not appear to be expert document examiners, but who concur that there is nothing on the face of the images of the documents that would cause them any particular concern in relation to their authenticity.

47. Although Mr Bara is an expert in document examination, nothing in the summary of his experience indicates that he is an expert in Sudan although it is likely that he has seen documents from many different countries during the course of his work. It seems that his opinion was given with reference to comparison documents. While bearing in mind that there might be data protection issues, it is a weakness in his evidence that the comparison documents do not appear to be appended to his statement to understand whether there are any significant differences between the images of these documents and other Sudanese identity documents that are known to be genuine.

48. Mr Bara’s observations regarding the birth certificate are trite given that it is obvious that a photograph of the document is not as satisfactory as being able to inspect the original document. In relation to the CRC he makes statements about the appearance of small aspects of the numeric fonts that to my non expert eye are barely discernible, if at all. The fact that the document was prepared and issued in a remote area of Darfur by someone who might not have access to the latest printing technology and whose first language is not English might well explain the slight anomaly that an expert document examiner noted. Certainly, it was not sufficient for Mr Bara to conclude that the document was false. He was simply unable to come to any conclusion as to its authenticity.

49. It is clear that the evidence relating to the birth certificate and the CRC has weaknesses. M has not been able to produce the original documents and the images of the documents are of relatively poor quality. However, enough information can be discerned from the photographs for Mr Verney to say that there is nothing on the face of the identity documents that would cause him to doubt their authenticity. Mr Bara’s opinion was inconclusive.

50. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the images of M’s identity documents are generally supportive of his stated date of birth. However, I will not come to a final conclusion as to whether the photographs of the documents are sufficiently reliable to show that it is more likely than not to be his date of birth until I have considered the evidence as a whole.

Professional opinions

51. A range of professional witnesses have given their opinions as to M’s likely age. The two Brief Enquiries were prepared by professional social workers who have formal training to work with young people and have been trained to conduct age assessments. I also spoke to Mr Warren Steventon who is M’s social worker. I also talked to Ms Clare Aissa, who is a UASC Officer for the Bi Borough Virtual School.

52. Although social workers have a higher level of training, they might see the young person only once, or even in the case of an allocated social worker, less often than those who might see a young person on a regular basis in more informal settings. Their interaction with the young person is in the context of more formal meetings relating to their care and might be complicated by the fact that the local authority is the body that is questioning their age. For these reasons, a young person might be more reticent in their dealings with social workers. Whilst allocated social workers might have an opportunity to get to know a young person over a period of time, the young person may demonstrate greater maturity in formal meetings with representatives of the local authority. A social worker is less likely to have the opportunity to observe the young person interacting with other young people in an informal setting.

53. The professional witnesses who I spoke to gave their evidence in an open and honest way and had no reason to provide anything other than their genuinely held opinions about M’s likely age. However, the witnesses have not had the opportunity to consider the full body of evidence presented to me. As such, their opinions form only part of my wider assessment of the evidence.

First age assessment (Westminster)

54. The first age assessment was not a full Merton assessment, but a Brief Enquiry. M was not questioned in any detail about his background. The assessment took place only 2-3 days after M’s arrival in the UK. He said that he had been sleeping rough with a friend until they found their way to a police station. The social workers who conducted the assessment noted that M appeared tired at points during the interview. They noted that he would shut his eyes, seemed exhausted, and would put his dead down.

55. M gave a different day and month of birth to the one that is contained in his birth certificate. However, he was consistent in saying that he was born in 2009 and was 15 years old. He told the social workers that he did not have an identity document with him. He did have identity documents in Sudan though. M gave an account of his journey to the UK. He told the social workers that his mother and father were still in Sudan. He had brothers and sisters. There was no exploration of their relative ages or of any educational history.

56. It is clear from the conclusions in the brief enquiry that the main reason for considering that M was much older than his stated age was his physical appearance and demeanour, which they considered ‘made him appear older than 15.’ (see [2] above). The social workers only had the opportunity to meet M once for a brief period of time. This was not likely to be sufficient to provide an adequate assessment of his background and level of maturity.

57. Assessing a young person solely by their appearance and demeanour is known to be an unreliable way to ascertain their age although it can form one part of an overall assessment. A young person of 15-16 years of age could also show quite a lot of features of physical maturity such as a broken voice and an adult height. No explanation was provided as to why the social workers considered M to be as much as nine years older than his stated age based solely on his appearance and demeanour.

58. Although Mr Verney is not an expert in age assessment, he was able to comment on M’s appearance and his ability to remember his exact age in the context of his cultural knowledge of Sudan. He said that it was less common for exact dates of birth to be recorded although people are likely to know their year of birth. When this is combined with the fact that M was recorded to be exhausted during the brief enquiry, the discrepancy in the day and month of his birth is less concerning.

59. Mr Verney also observed that, in his non expert opinion, M did not have a receding hairline, but a high forehead which was ‘typical of people from his area.’ As an immigration judge who has also spoken to many people from different areas of the world, including Sudan, I find that it is reasonable to take judicial notice of the fact that Mr Verney’s observations are broadly consistent with my own interactions with people from southern areas of Sudan who are often tall and can have a similar overall appearance to M.

60. At the time, the social workers from Westminster City Council did not have the benefit of the photographs of the birth certificate, which M was able to produce for the second age assessment. While recognising the training and expertise of the social workers, the fact that the assessment was so brief and relied largely on M’s physical appearance and demeanour, without seeming to take into account the cultural context of Sudan, means that less weight can be placed on their opinion that his age was as high as 24 years old.

Second age assessment (Hammersmith & Fulham)

61. The second age assessment came to the same conclusion as the first. Again, this was a Brief Enquiry albeit it did appear to go into more detail about M’s family and educational background. However, it is clear that the social workers who conducted the assessment based their decision largely on apparent inconsistencies and the credibility of M’s account.

62. First, the social workers appeared to place weight on the fact that M had been inconsistent in stating his date of birth. In coming to this conclusion they placed weight on the fact that his date of birth was recorded as 15 May 2009 in the first age assessment, then 01 January 2000 in the Home Office screening interview, then 25 April 2009 in the photograph of his birth certificate.

63. These inconsistencies are not necessarily undermining when one considers the course of events in the context of the other evidence, such as Mr Verney’s report. The fact that M might have remembered the day and month of his birth incorrectly is not so undermining of his credibility when considered in the context of his noted exhaustion at the interview and in the cultural context (see [58] above).

64. The screening interview with the Home Office took place the next day. The first age assessment recorded that the social workers gave M documents to give to the Home Office. The fact that his date of birth was then recorded as 01 January 2000 suggests that it might have been entered by the immigration officer as a matter of course to reflect the finding of the first age assessment. Given that the age assessment did not allocate a date of birth, it is common practice for the Home Office to record an unclear date of birth as 01 January. The allocation of the year of birth as 2000 reflected the finding made in the first age assessment that M was likely to be 24 years old. There does not appear to be reason for M to have told the interviewing officer that his date of birth was 01 January 2000 when only the day before he made clear that he was born in 2009 and was 15 years old. None of this appears to have been considered by the social workers who conducted the second age assessment, who might not have had the same knowledge about common Home Office practice as this expert tribunal.

65. Second, the social workers record that they saw a photograph of M’s birth certificate. It is unclear whether they had a translation of the birth certificate or whether it might have been translated by the interpreter at the interview. The social workers record that M was asked to look at the birth certificate to ascertain whether the date of birth might have been tampered with. The Brief Enquiry does not record what concerns the social workers might have had with the document. If their concerns related to the slightly heavier impress in the handwritten Arabic numeral of the date of birth (see [19] above), then this was adequately addressed by the fact that the full date of birth was also written out in words. This might not have been apparent to the social workers if they did not have a full translation of the birth certificate to consider.

66. In my assessment, none of the discrepancies that the social workers who conducted the second age assessment were of sufficient significance to undermine the document, which was at least supportive of his stated age. The social workers seemed to find that M was likely to be 24 years old based on the first age assessment and their own observation that M was ‘very confident throughout the interview’ and ‘expressed no emotion when talking about having to leave his parents.’

Warren Steventon (Allocated Social Worker)

67. Mr Steventon is an experienced social worker at Westminster City Council who also has training and experience in conducting age assessments. He has been M’s social worker since 18 December 2024.

68. At the date when he finalised his witness statement, Mr Steventon had contact with M around four times. The first was a brief online meeting of around 30 minutes. The second was a longer visit of around 45-60 minutes. The third was a brief visit of around 30 minutes to see M in his placement. Mr Steventon also saw M at the LAC Achievement Awards ceremony in February 2025, but this seems to have been a larger event with a number of young people who were looked after by social services rather than a LAC visit. After that M was seen by other social workers. At the hearing, Mr Steventon said that he had seen M about 3-4 times since he prepared his statement.

69. Mr Steventon’s opinion was that M was likely to be older than his stated age. The reasons he gave for coming to this conclusion were that M had a deep voice and his facial features were of someone who was older than 15 years old. M had a distinct jaw line, a prominent Adam’s apple, and has facial features that appear more structurally defined that that of an average 15 year old. M presented as calm and collected and was clear about his wants and needs. He was comfortable about asserting himself and seemed able to go out alone. M was also showing an interest in developing independent living skills, such as asking for an allowance to buy his own ingredients to cook. These were traits he did not commonly seen in a 15 year old. Mr Steventon considered that M was more likely to be a young person of around 19-20 years old.

70. There is nothing in his witness statement to suggest that Mr Steventon was aware of or had seen the photographs of the identity documents produced by M after the first age assessment. He said that he had only had sight of the first age assessment conducted by Westminster City Council. At the hearing, he said that he had still not seen the identity documents.

71. Mr Steventon had also asked for the opinion of M’s foster carer, but she was unable to given view one way or another as to M’s likely age.

72. At the hearing, Mr Steventon was still of the same view as to M’s likely age. When questioned, he said that he had not discussed M’s experiences in Sudan or his journey to the UK. He accepted that if M made a long journey on his own that it might have been a factor that could have ‘forced him to mature more quickly’ (as suggested by counsel). However, he had worked with other young people who made similar journeys who did not have the confidence that M seemed to have when they arrived in the UK. Mr Steventon told me that he had also taken into account the fact that M was in adult NASS accommodation for 6 months before coming into the care of the local authority.

73. Mr Steventon was unaware of the fact that M had been diagnosed with complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by Dr Moghraby. Given that the report was dated 10 December 2024, it is unclear why neither party had ensured that it was brought to the attention of M’s allocated social worker. Mr Steventon agreed that it would have been helpful for him to know about the diagnosis.

74. Mr Steventon then discussed various aspects of the social care records with counsel. He said that some aspects appeared to suggest that M might be older than his stated age, but was also fair in accepting that other aspects might not. For example, he accepted that M’s interest in learning to cook specific foods did not necessarily tell me much about his stated age given that a 16 year old or a 19 year old could express the same interest.

75. Mr Steventon gave his genuinely held opinion as to M’s likely age based on his professional experience and his own interactions with M in the six months preceding the hearing. His opinion as to M’s likely age was based largely on his own observations about M’s appearance, demeanour and level of maturity. It is notable that the opinion of a social worker who has seen M on more than the one occasion that the age assessors did during the Brief Enquiries, has come to the conclusion that M is likely to be 19-20 years old. In other words, his assessment as to M’s likely age is at least 4-5 years less than either of the original age assessments.

76. However, it also became clear that Mr Steventon had not yet had the opportunity to discuss M’s background or past experiences with him in sufficient detail to form a fully rounded view of his age. He had not been provided with copies of the photographs of the Sudanese identity documents. Nor was he aware of the fact that M had been diagnosed with complex PTSD. While giving weight to Mr Steventon’s professional experience and opinion, I bear in mind that it was based largely on M’s appearance and demeanour and with reference to less evidence than is now available to the Upper Tribunal.

Clare Aissa (Bi Borough teacher)

77. Ms Aissa is a UASC Education Officer within the Bi Borough Virtual School. Her role involves supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children surrounding their education. She completes regular visits to young people to support them with access to education, work experience, and job opportunities. Ms Aissa does not cite any formal training or experience in age assessment, but I accept that she has many years of experience in teaching and is likely to work with a range of different age groups in the course of her work.

78. Ms Aissa has been working with M since January 2025. In her statement, she said that at their first meeting online he presented as a quiet and shy young person. He interacted with short answers throughout the interview. She also saw M at the LAC awards in February 2025. She said that he observed him interacting with a group of young people of around 16-19 years of age. He seemed to interact well with them. She continued to liaise with his foster carer and social worker around his engagement with online learning. Ms Aissa said that no safeguarding concerns have been raised by the teachers on the programme around M’s interaction with other students aged 16-18 years old.

79. Ms Aissa described several other meetings and interactions with M since the LAC awards in February 2025. Her observation was that M’s physical presentation did appear to be older than his stated age. She based this observation on his general height, body development and his deep voice. In her opinion, his body language and interactions are similar to other unaccompanied minors of around 17-21 years old. She said that M came across as shy and lacked confidence in his learning. He does well when praised, in common with other young people who have no previous experience of education.

80. When Ms Aissa met M for a longer meeting in his placement at the end of March 2025, she noted that he engaged well with the interpreter and with her. She observed that he has not been able to develop his social skills as she would expect of someone in the older age group of 17-21 years old. In that age bracket she would usually expect the young person to be a lot more independent and proactive in their learning. However, she did still consider that his social skills were more developed than someone of 15 years old. She based this opinion on the fact that M had told her about travelling around London on his own. She would not expect this of a 15 year old without initial support of the foster carer to help the young period to attend various appointments.

81. At the end of her statement, Ms Aissa accepted that her interactions with M had been limited to only a few hours online and in person. However, her view was that his ‘development and social interactions’ did not indicate that he was as young as 15 years old. In her view he was more likely to be in the age range of 17-21 years old ‘due to the maturity of his development.’

82. At the hearing, Ms Aissa said that she had one more interaction with M since finalising he statement. She visited him at home and spoke to him for about 45 minutes. She also spoke to M and Mr Steventon a couple of days before the hearing. There was nothing that had happened since then to change her view of M’s likely age.

83. Ms Aissa said that she had seen Mr Verney’s description relating to the general appearance of Darfuri teenagers. She agreed in part with what was said but observed that their characteristics are varied. Some could be tall. She also explained that a young person’s appearance and development could be impacted by their journeys. Ms Aissa explained that in considering a young person’s age she focussed more on their behaviour and interaction.

84. Ms Aissa gave her genuinely held opinion as to M’s likely age. Although she is not trained in age assessments, Ms Aissa has a great deal of experience of working with young people and unaccompanied asylum seekers in education settings. Unlike the other professionals, she made clear that she did not place too much weight on M’s appearance and demeanour and accepted that a difficult journey to the UK might have an impact on a young person’s physical and developmental presentation. Nevertheless, M’s physical appearance and development does seem to have formed some part of her overall assessment. Ms Aissa acknowledged that her interactions with M had been relatively limited.

85. Again, it is notable that Ms Aissa’s professional opinion as to M’s likely age could, at the bottom of the scale, indicate that M is still a child. Her opinion as to his likely age was around 3-7 years less than either of the original age assessments. Nothing in the evidence given in her witness statement or during the hearing indicated that Ms Aissa had been made aware of the fact that M had photographs of Sudanese identity documents or had been diagnosed with complex PTSD. Like Mr Steventon, her professional opinion is based on less evidence than is now available to the Upper Tribunal.

86. Two professionals who have had more interaction with M than the social workers who conducted either of the age assessments have concluded that M more likely to be in an age range of between 17-21 years old. This tends to undermine the original assessments that he was likely to be 24 years old.

Dr Moghraby’s report

87. Dr Moghraby is a Consultant Child and Adolescent psychiatrist with at least 18 years of experience in Child and Adolescent psychiatry. Dr Moghraby interviewed M with the assistance of an interpreter. Dr Moghraby was asked to prepare a report, in part, to assist M with the application for interim relief in these proceedings. His diagnosis of complex PTSD is nevertheless likely to be relevant to the substantive proceedings and may assist those who might provide support services to M going forward.

88. Dr Moghraby’s report provides further information from M as to how he was spending his time in NASS accommodation and the ages of some of the friends he made. M told Dr Moghraby that he had two friends. One was also from Nyala although he did not know him there. This friend was nearly 15 years old and seemed to be in foster care. His other friend lived in a shared house with other underaged boys in the care of social services. They enjoyed chatting together and playing football. At that time, he did not see his friends much during the day because they were at school.

89. Dr Moghraby noted that M ‘had the appearance, manner and engagement of a young person/youth.’ In his opinion M ‘certainly appeared younger than someone who was reported to be in his 20s.’ Although Dr Moghraby did not purport to give a formal assessment of M’s age, I accept that as a Child and Adolescent psychiatrist he is likely to have a great deal of experience of talking to many young people of a range of ages. For this reason, his opinion also lends weight to the suggestion that M is not likely to be as old as 24 years old. Dr Moghraby’s opinion is broadly consistent with that of Mr Steventon and Ms Aissa in concluding that M is likely to be quite a few years younger than the age he was originally assessed to be.

M’s evidence

90. When I met M his presentation was consistent with him being a young person from Darfur with common features of people from the Sahel region of Sudan as noted by Mr Verney. In light of that evidence, the fact that he is a tall young man, with a high forehead, and a deep voice, did not necessarily give a strong indication that he might be significantly older than his stated age. A 16 year old boy’s voice could also have broken and a teenager of that age could also reach an adult height albeit there might still be some scope for further growth.

91. I had the opportunity to talk to M for several hours on the first day of the hearing. At times he seemed to find it difficult to understand the questions being put to him or to formulate his answers in an articulate way. He also appeared distracted and bored at times. On a couple of occasions I asked him to stop doodling in the notebook he had been given and try to concentrate on the questions he was being asked. This indicated some lack of maturity, but again, could be consistent with a 16 year old or an immature young person of 19-20 years old. However, a slightly older young person is more likely to understand the importance of the case and might show a greater level of maturity and concentration when being asked questions in a formal court setting. M also became rather upset and tearful when we talked about his mum. Again, this is not strongly indicative of his age but is at least supportive of a younger person of his stated age than one who is a young adult.

92. M’s evidence as recorded in the documentary evidence, and at the hearing, was at times rather vague and confused. It is not necessary to recite his evidence in any detail because Ms Butler accepted that there were discrepancies in the evidence as to his stated age as set out above.

93. Ms Godfrey submitted that the discrepancies relating to his date of birth and inconsistencies in his evidence relating to who sent the documents undermined the reliability of the photographs of the Sudanese identity documents as evidence of his age. She did not go so far as to argue that the evidence showed that the documents were likely to be false. It would be difficult to do so in light of Mr Bara’s inconclusive assessment. Nor is it necessary for the respondent to prove that the documents are false.

94. M’s date of birth was recorded differently prior to obtaining the photographs of the Sudanese identity documents. However, I have already found that the inaccuracy in the record of his day and month of birth at the first age assessment could be adequately explained by exhaustion and cultural factors (see [58] above). I have also explained why it might be plausible that the Home Office record of the next day could have been completed by the immigration officer who conducted the interview based on the broad finding in the first age assessment that M was likely to be 24 years old (see [64] above).

95. I accept that M’s evidence as to how he was sent the photographs of the Sudanese identity documents was vague and confused. This might be a matter that goes to the credibility of his account and the weight that can be placed on the images of the Sudanese identity documents. However, I find that there is nothing inherently implausible about the fact that his mother might have asked someone else in the compound or camp to send the images to M. The evidence indicates that his family is likely to live in poor circumstances in an IDP camp in a rural region of Sudan that is affected by conflict. It is plausible that a family might not have ready access to a mobile phone, the internet, or use social media on a regular basis.

96. The suggestion that his friend might have been outside Sudan from 2020 and could not have helped his mother in the way that M initially claimed is a matter that has not been adequately explained. M simply said that he didn’t know why his friend’s account said that he might have been in Algeria in 2020. This is capable of being damaging to M’s overall credibility. In the end, M was not able to provide any clear or consistent explanation as to how he obtained the images of the documents save to repeat that his mother made arrangements for them to be sent after he spoke to her.

97. In assessing the credibility of M’s evidence I also take into account his level of education and the evidence contained in Dr Moghraby’s report. Both are matters that might also impact on his ability to provide a clear and consistent account. Given the conflict situation in Darfur, it is plausible that M may not have had access to formal education and may struggle to articulate himself and/or to use modern technology effectively. Dr Moghraby’s diagnosis of complex PTSD seemed to only be an initial stepping stone to assess the impact that M’s experiences in Sudan and on the journey to the UK might have had on him. However, it is plausible that any diagnosis of this kind might also impact M’s ability to recall some events and to articulate himself clearly.

98. Some aspects of M’s evidence were inconsistent or unclear. I cannot completely discount the possibility that he might not have been truthful about certain aspects of his account. However, the credibility issues raised on behalf of the respondent were either not sufficiently serious or might be explained by other factors. In my assessment, the credibility issues that were raised were not such that they might significantly undermine the reliability of the photographs of the Sudanese identity documents which are supportive of his stated date of birth.

CONCLUSION

99. In the Merton case Stanley Burton J described the impossibility of any decision maker being able to make an objectively verifiably determination of the age of a young person within the age range of 16-20 years old [28]. He considered evidence from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Heath, which made clear that age determination is an inexact science and the margin of error could be as much as five years either side [22].

100. The images of M’s birth certificate and CRC are not the best evidence of his age because he has been unable to produce the original documents. In light of Mr Verney’s evidence, and what is known about the situation in the region where M comes from, it is plausible that it would be difficult to send the original documents to the UK by post. As such, electronic images might have been the only realistic way to convey the information to the UK.

101. The images themselves are not of sufficient quality for any reliable forensic examination of the documents to take place. Albeit Mr Verney is not qualified as a forensic document examiner, he is familiar with the format of such documents. In the circumstances, it is overstating the case to say that Mr Verney has authenticated the documents. At best, all he was able to say was that there was nothing on the face of the documents to cause him any concerns as to their authenticity.

102. Mr Bara is a trained document examiner but due to the poor quality of the images his opinion was inconclusive. Although M’s account of his date of birth and how he obtained the images has in places been vague and confused, I have found that the credibility issues raised are insufficient to significantly undermine the reliability of the information contained in the images of the Sudanese identity documents. There is insufficient evidence to show that the documents might be forged or highly unreliable. For this reason, the images of the documents, although not proving age with any certainty, are supportive of M’s stated age.

103. For the reasons explained above, the weight of the evidence does not support the conclusions contained in the first and second age assessments, that M was likely to be as old as 24 years old. The professional witnesses who attended the hearing have had more contact with M, albeit it is still relatively limited. Mr Steventon’s opinion was that M was likely to be around 19-20 years old. However, this assessment was based largely on M’s appearance and demeanour and without having considered the Sudanese identity documents or in the knowledge that M may have complex PTSD. Ms Aissa gave the lowest assessment of a possible age range of between 17-21 years old, but again, did not have all of the evidence. Dr Moghraby did not identify a particular age but also considered that M was not likely to be as old as he was initially assessed to be.

104. I have placed weight on the opinions of these professional witnesses. Some of their observations that M appears to have greater maturity than they would expect could also be explained by his experiences during a long journey to the UK and having managed in adult accommodation for 6 months before being looked after. Other evidence that was not available to Mr Steventon or Ms Aissa indicates that M has needed support when he is travelling to new areas of London for appointments that he is not familiar with. In other words, he might not be quite as confident as they initially thought. Given that the opinions of these witnesses were much closer to M’s stated age I do not consider that they are sufficient to outweigh the evidence that supports M’s claimed age in the form of the photographs of the Sudanese identity documents.

105. I bear in mind that it is not possible to assess a person’s age with any certainty. I do not have to be certain. The balance of probabilities allows room for doubt. I only have to consider whether it is more likely than not that M was a child when he arrived in the UK. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the weight of the evidence now indicates that M is more likely to be his stated age of 16 years old at the date of the hearing.

Declaration

106. M is allocated the date of birth of 25 April 2009.

~~~~0~~~~