JR-2025-LON-000432
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
JR-2025-LON-000432
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
IN THE MATTER OF A CLAIM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
BETWEEN:
THE KING on the application of
SS
(Anonymity order made)
Applicant
-and-
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Hirst
HAVNG considered all documents lodged and having heard Ms. A. Benfield of counsel, instructed by Osbornes Law for the Applicant and Lord Murray of counsel, instructed for the Respondent at a hearing held on 29 to 31 July 2025
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s date of birth is 1 January 2007.
(2) The Applicant should hereafter be treated in accordance with his claimed age and provided with support and services on that basis by the London Borough of Croydon in accordance with the Children Act 1989.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s claim for judicial review is allowed for the reasons in the attached judgment.
(2) The Respondent age assessment and decision notice dated 18 June 2024 are hereby quashed.
(3) The order for anonymity made by the Administrative Court remains in force.
Costs
(4) The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs of the claim, to be assessed if not agreed.
(5) There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.
Permission to appeal
(6) The Respondent shall file any application for permission to appeal, in writing, by 4pm 7 days from the date this order is sent to the parties. In the event that submissions are filed the Applicant may file written submissions in response within 7 days thereafter and the Tribunal will thereafter consider the application on the papers. In the event that an application is not made by the Respondent then permission to appeal is refused.
(7) Time to file any onward notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CPR 52.3 and CPR 52.12, is extended and shall run from the date of the Upper Tribunal’s decision on the Respondent’s application for permission or, if no application is made pursuant to paragraph 6 of this order, from 7 days after the date this order is sent to the parties.
Dated 2 December 2025
Case No: JR-2025-LON-000432
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
2nd December 2025
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of SS
(Anonymity order made)
Applicant
- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Antonia Benfield
(instructed by Osbornes Solicitors LLP) for the Applicant
Lord Murray of Blidworth
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 29-31 July 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Applicant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Applicant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Applicant either directly or indirectly. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
Judge Hirst:
1. The Applicant challenges the Respondent’s age assessment dated 10 May 2024 which assessed him as being then 19 years old (now 20) with a birth date of 31 January 2005. The Applicant’s case is that he was born in 2007 and is currently 18 years old.
2. This judgment follows a fact-finding hearing on 29-31 July 2025 for the purpose of determining the Applicant’s age and date of birth. For the reasons set out below, I have concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant is 18 years old and that his date of birth is 1 January 2007.
Background
3. The Applicant is a national of Afghanistan. He fled Afghanistan shortly after the Taliban returned to power in August 2021, and having travelled through Europe arrived in the UK by small boat on 23 October 2022 and claimed asylum.
4. The Applicant underwent a screening interview on 25 October 2022 at which his date of birth was recorded as 5 January 2005. He was placed in Home Office hotel accommodation for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. On 28 October 2022 an interview carried out at the hotel recorded that the Claimant said he knew he was born in 2005 in the month of January but did not know the date.
5. On 5 January 2023, having turned 18 on his recorded date of birth, the Applicant was moved to adult asylum support accommodation. He later left that accommodation to stay with a family friend. That arrangement broke down and by late October 2023 he was homeless and rough sleeping. He presented to Young Roots, a youth support charity, who referred him to the London Borough of Croydon (‘Croydon’). On 1 November 2023 Croydon placed the Applicant in local authority foster care.
6. On 12 December 2023 the Applicant provided Croydon with a copy of his Afghan tazkira. On 20 December 2023 Croydon referred the Applicant to the Respondent’s National Age Assessment Board (‘NAAB’) for an age assessment under s50 Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
7. On 25 January 2024 the Home Office recognised the Applicant as a refugee and granted him leave to remain until 15 January 2029.
8. On 28 March 2024 the NAAB commenced the age assessment and information gathering sessions were held on 10, 16, 17 and 24 April 2024. The age assessment decision, which was dated 10 May 2024, was communicated to the Applicant on 18 June 2024. The Respondent concluded that the Applicant was an adult then aged 19 with a birth date of 31 January 2005.
9. On 11 September 2024 the Applicant’s solicitor provided the NAAB with two expert reports from Dr Antonio Giustozzi and Dr Jawed Hassan Zadeh authenticating the Afghan tazkira, along with an observation report from Mr Philip Bronte, the Applicant’s teacher at college. On 13 September 2024 the Applicant’s solicitor provided a further observation report from Ms Elizabeth Markey, the Head of Service at Young Roots in Croydon.
10. On 17 September 2024 the Applicant lodged this claim for judicial review in the Administrative Court with an application for a stay to enable the NAAB to consider the further material. On 19 September 2024 the NAAB declined to carry out a further age assessment on the basis that the statutory threshold for a further assessment was deemed not to have been met.
11. On 10 February 2025 the Administrative Court granted permission and the claim was transferred to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing to determine the Applicant’s age.
Preliminary matters
12. At the outset of the hearing I determined two outstanding applications. The Applicant sought permission to adduce a report by Professor Koepp, a consultant neurologist, on the impact of the Applicant’s epilepsy on his cognition and recall, and a handwriting analysis report by Dr Zadeh commenting on a Swiss document referred to in the Respondent’s age assessment. As both reports seemed to me to be potentially relevant to the assessment of the Applicant’s age, I granted permission to adduce both reports.
13. The Respondent made an application for permission to rely on a witness statement by Yvonne Shearwood, and for a direction substituting the National Age Assessment Board as respondent in these proceedings. I granted permission to rely on Ms Shearwood’s statement. As the issue of the correct respondent had been raised only shortly before the hearing, I indicated that I would determine that part of the application at the end of the hearing and requested written submissions from the parties. In the event, the Respondent did not pursue the application to substitute and I therefore did not determine that part of the application.
The legal framework
14. The role of the Upper Tribunal in these proceedings is to determine, on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant’s age and date of birth.
15. The age assessment in this case was carried out under the provisions of Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Section 50 of the Act provides that a local authority may refer an age-disputed young person to a ‘designated person’ for an age assessment. A designated person is an official of the Secretary of State who is designated to conduct age assessments under s50 or 51. Section 51 of the Act provides that an age assessment carried out by a designated person is binding on the Secretary of State and immigration officers when exercising immigration functions.
16. Although s53 of the 2022 Act permits the Secretary of State to make regulations about the processes or methodology to be used in age assessments, at the time of the hearing there was no statutorily prescribed procedure. The age assessment in this case therefore remains subject to the principles and guidance developed in a substantial body of caselaw, starting with R(B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] 4 All ER 280 (‘Merton’) and developed in a number of more recent cases. The core principles relevant to a fact-finding age assessment hearing such as this one include the following:
a. The age of an individual is a hard-edged question of fact, which is for the reviewing court to determine on all of the evidence before it, including fresh evidence not available to the age assessor(s) and oral evidence: R (A) v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8;
b. Neither party bears the burden of proof and there is no presumption either way as to whether the individual is a child or an adult: R (HAM) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin), R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590;
c. Observations based on an individual’s physical appearance or demeanour are to be treated with caution except in the most clear-cut cases: Merton, NA v LB Croydon [2009] EWHC 2357 (Admin):
d. The views of other professionals who have come into contact with the young person can and should be taken into account in the assessment: R (AM) v Solihull MBC [2012] UKUT 00118 (IAC);
e. The decision-maker should assess credibility “in the round”, having regard to all relevant evidence including expert evidence: MVN v LB Greenwich [2015] EWHC Civ 1942.
17. Those principles are reflected in the non-statutory guidance issued by the NAAB on the conduct of age assessments under ss50-51 of the 2022 Act, and the best practice guidance on age assessment published by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (‘the ADCS guidance’).
Evidence
18. I had before me a significant quantity of evidence, including a hearing bundle of 1,051 pages together with a supplementary bundle of 171 pages and the reports of Professor Koepp and Dr Zadeh which were filed separately, as well as a bundle of authorities. During the hearing I was also sent further materials including policy documents from Young Roots, the Home Office response to the recommendations made by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration in his report on age assessments, and a further authority on which the Respondent wished to rely. I have given careful consideration to all the written evidence which was before me, including documents not referred to below, but observe that some of it was not relied on by either party and whilst relevant to the public law issues in the claim for judicial review, was of limited if any relevance to the fact-finding hearing.
19. It was common ground that both the ‘deeming’ age decision made by the Youth Court on 9 August 2024 under s99 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 that the Applicant should be treated as an adult in his criminal proceedings, and the subsequent reversal of that decision by the Inner London Crown Court dated 11 December 2024 (both of which were included in the bundle), were not themselves of probative value in assessing the Applicant’s age as both decisions relied on a subset of the evidence before me. Accordingly I have not considered either decision further or placed any weight on them in reaching my conclusions as to the Applicant’s age and date of birth. Nor have I given further consideration to the witness statement of Katie McFadden which addressed the Crown Court ruling.
20. Mr Amir Faizi, a paralegal at the Applicant’s solicitor’s firm, provided a witness statement detailing a telephone call with the Applicant’s mother on 9 September 2024 in which the Applicant’s age was discussed. Mr Taylor, the Applicant’s solicitor, also provided two witness statements explaining the background to the Applicant’s case and the circumstances in which the Applicant provided his witness statements. Neither Mr Faizi nor Mr Taylor gave oral evidence.
21. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Youngs and Ms Watts (the age assessors) made written witness statements explaining the age assessment process in the Applicant’s case and their conclusions on his age. Neither gave oral evidence.
22. Ms Yvonne Shearwood also provided a witness statement on behalf of the Respondent but did not give oral evidence. Ms Shearwood is the Lead for the NAAB and her statement addressed the processes for NAAB age assessments and the training which age assessors receive.
23. In addition to the documentary evidence I heard oral evidence from the Applicant and from Ms Elizabeth Markey, Ms Shonam Khaki and Mr Philip Bronte on behalf of the Applicant. The evidence of the witnesses is recorded in their witness statements and the record of proceedings and is summarised as necessary below.
24. Both counsel provided skeleton arguments in advance of the hearing and Ms Benfield also provided written closing submissions. I am grateful to both counsel for their constructive approach throughout the hearing and for their helpful and concise written and oral submissions.
The Respondent’s age assessment
25. The Respondent’s age assessment was carried out by two social workers, Mr Shane Youngs and Ms Hannah Watts. Both made witness statements for the hearing which I have read and considered carefully together with the assessment and supporting documents.
26. The age assessment process involved three “information-gathering” sessions at which the Applicant was interviewed, and then a “minded to” meeting at which the Applicant was asked to clarify discrepancies. The assessment decision runs to 61 pages and was accompanied by the notes of the interviews. The assessors concluded that the Applicant was an adult primarily because:
a. He had given his date of birth as 5 January 2005 in his initial assessment at the Kent Intake Unit (‘KIU’) and all subsequent alterations in his narrative had reduced his age. He was not able to give a credible reason why the age information recorded in his KIU interview was incorrect;
b. He had subsequently corroborated January 2005 in his hotel interview on 28 October 2022;
c. He had not raised any objections to his recorded age until he was placed in adult accommodation, approximately three months after he entered the UK. There was no record of his challenging his age until he had made unsuccessful attempts to find alternative housing;
d. He had given inconsistent accounts as to how he got his tazkira in Afghanistan;
e. He had not presented his tazkira until 11 months after he claimed he had realised his age was incorrect and 2 months after he had presented to the local authority as a minor, which led the assessors to conclude that the tazkira was created to support his claimed age;
f. His lack of memory during the age assessment interviews led the assessors to conclude that he was deliberately withholding information. In particular, they recorded that he had answered “I don’t know” at least 158 times and “I can’t remember” no less than 49 times during the age assessment interviews;
g. His claimed lack of knowledge of time or calendars was at odds with the detailed timelines he had provided of his journey to the UK, again leading the assessors to conclude that he was attempting to mislead them as to his true age.
The Applicant’s tazkira
27. The Applicant’s Afghan tazkira was sent to him after his arrival in the UK and presented to Croydon on 12 December 2023. The date of issue of the tazkira is given as “11/02/1398 [01 May 2019]”. Under ‘Date of Birth and Age’ the translated copy of the tazkira records
“Based on physical appearance age assessed as (12) Twelve-year-old in 1398 [2019/2020]”
The Gregorian calendar dates in square brackets have been added by the translator with a note explaining that where a day or month is not specified in the Afghan calendar, the resulting date may be one of two years.
28. Dr Jawad Hassan Zadeh provided an expert report on the authenticity of the tazkira. He examined the details, format, and language of the tazkira and confirms that in his opinion the tazkira is a genuine document. Dr Zadeh’s report also provides details of the process by which a tazkira is issued, which involves an age assessor viewing a child’s appearance and asking questions of the accompanying parent or guardian, then determining the child’s age.
29. Dr Antonio Giustozzi also provided an expert report in which he confirms that a researcher authenticated the tazkira by visiting the Kabul Civil Registration Directorate. The report confirms that the tazkira presented by the Applicant matched that in records of the Directorate and had been confirmed as authentic by the Directorate’s head of the inspection department.
Medical expert reports
30. Dr Jamie Connor, a consultant clinical psychologist, provided a report dated 22 October 2024 produced for the Applicant’s criminal proceedings. Dr Connor noted that during his assessment the Applicant presented with behaviours more commonly observed in younger adolescents and that although adult cognitive measures were used “his behaviour and overall presentation indicated a cognitive and emotional functioning level more aligned with that of a child”. Dr Connor assessed the Applicant with PTSD and advised that he be referred for a neurological assessment. The Applicant’s cognitive function, which was assessed using the standardised WAIS-II test, demonstrated scores well below average in every area other than vocabulary, and exceptionally low scores in the areas of concentration, attention and comprehension. Dr Connor’s view was that the Applicant’s cognitive performance could reflect either a developmental age or maturity level not appropriately assessed by an adult neuropsychological test, or possible organic brain damage from a head injury.
31. Dr Vivek Bisht, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, provided a report dated 25 November 2024 also for the criminal proceedings. Dr Bisht confirmed the diagnosis of PTSD together with adjustment disorder and also recommended a head scan to rule out traumatic brain injury.
32. Professor Matthias Koepp, a consultant neurologist and epileptologist, provided a report dated 25 June 2025. He confirmed that the Applicant suffers from epilepsy which had been present during his journey to the UK and was untreated until early 2025. Untreated epilepsy would affect memory, concentration, recall and cognitive performance, and it was plausible that it could lead to confusion and gaps in the Applicant’s memory and recall and affect his ability to give a detailed and consistent account of his life in Afghanistan. He noted that the Applicant’s MRI scan had identified a developmental abnormality (heterotopia) in his brain indicating a developmental disorder affecting his maturity and cognitive function.
The Applicant’s evidence
33. The Applicant gave evidence via an Afghan Dari interpreter on the first day of the hearing. It was agreed that the Applicant should be treated as a vulnerable witness. Both parties ensured that the questions put to the Applicant were in simplified terms and that he was shown documents before being asked questions about them. He was offered a break during the morning’s evidence and was supported by Ms Markey throughout. The Applicant was unwell and did not attend court on the second day, but Ms Benfield confirmed that he wished the hearing to proceed in his absence and he returned to hear submissions on the third day.
34. The Applicant adopted his witness statements dated 10 October 2024, 11 April 2025 and 24 July 2025. In those statements the Applicant said that he had not known his age or birthdate whilst living in Afghanistan, as it had never been discussed and it was not important in Afghan culture. He had been to school but had left after grade 6 and was then aged around 14. He left Afghanistan a month or two after the fall of Kabul in August 2021. He did not know his age or birthdate when he left Afghanistan. He had not known the Afghan calendar, and only became aware of months and years when he came to the UK.
35. The Applicant’s journey was organised and paid for by his uncle. He travelled by car and coach to Tehran, then crossed the Turkish border and travelled by car and on foot to Istanbul where he stayed with a friend of his uncle’s for several months. He then crossed with others into Bulgaria, where they were detained and beaten by the Bulgarian authorities before being returned to the Turkish side of the border. The Applicant returned to Istanbul, where he worked in an industrial laundry for several months before deciding to travel onwards with the assistance of a second agent arranged by his uncle. The Applicant crossed from Turkey to Greece by boat and then travelled by foot and car to Macedonia. The Applicant then continued his journey through Serbia, Hungary and Austria where he was detained by the authorities in a migrant camp.
36. After leaving the camp he travelled to Switzerland. In his witness statements the Applicant said that he had been stopped by Swiss officials but was not the person named in the document considered by the age assessors. He had told Swiss officials that he was 16, because that was the age given by another young person he was travelling with who appeared to be a similar age to him. In oral evidence, however, the Applicant stated that he had not been stopped by officials in Switzerland, nor asked about his name or age. It was in Austria that he had told officials that he was 16. In Switzerland the Applicant joined a group of young migrants headed to France. He travelled by train without a ticket, eventually reaching Calais where an agent arranged for him to travel to the UK by boat.
37. When he travelled to the UK he was advised by other travellers that he would need to give a date of birth in order to claim asylum, and so he gave the Home Office a random date of 5 January 2005. In his hotel interview on 28 October 2022, he had only remembered the month and year he had provided. He did not understand at the time the significance of his age or birthdate, or that providing the wrong date could affect his rights. He had not known anything about the Gregorian calendar at that time.
38. After he was transferred to the adult hotel (in January 2023) and saw that the other people were a lot older than he was, the Applicant realised that his age could affect how he was treated. He asked his uncle about his age; his uncle told him that he had been 14 when he left Afghanistan and was then around 16.
39. The Applicant said that he had attempted to tell staff in the adult hotel that he was a child but had been sent an email with forms in English which he was unable to read. He then thought nobody was going to do anything about his situation and he started to care less about the issue of his age. After leaving the adult hotel accommodation he had stayed with a family friend but that broke down when the Applicant was unable to pay rent. The Applicant sought council accommodation but was refused, and then slept rough in a park before a friend took him to Young Roots.
40. His tazkira had been obtained in Afghanistan by his father and he had not been present. He had seen his tazkira in Afghanistan on one occasion when it was requested by his school, but he had not read it at that time and did not know it was important. When asked why the tazkira had been provided to Croydon only 11 months after he realised his age was incorrectly recorded by the Home Office, he said that he had been advised that he could challenge his age and had obtained it for that reason.
41. A few months before the age assessment, the Applicant’s mother had told him that he was about to turn 17.
42. The Applicant said that he had experienced epileptic seizures during his journey to the UK, including major seizures where he had collapsed and been revived by other migrants. He had continued to have frequent seizures in the UK, at least twice a week, but since his diagnosis he had been given medication which had reduced the frequency. He had been asked a lot of questions in the age assessment and was having memory problems at the time. He thought the age assessors were trying to put him in a difficult position and test his memory, which he found very stressful. He had answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t remember’ when he didn’t know the answer to the questions he was asked.
43. In re-examination the Applicant said that he had said he was 17 on arrival in the UK because he had told officials in Austria that he was 16 and a lot of time had passed since then, so he had said 17. He said that he had given a day and month of birth but denied that he had said anything about the year.
Witness evidence
44. Ms Markey gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. In cross-examination she confirmed that she knew the Applicant in her caseworking capacity. When upon his referral to Young Roots she had checked the Applicant’s details with him, he had stated in relation to his recorded age that “I’m not big like that but it doesn’t matter”. She took the Applicant’s reference to ‘big men’ at the adult hostel to mean people older than him in an environment he was not comfortable with. She agreed that the Applicant’s physical appearance and demeanour were not decisive, and noted that this was a difficult case because there was a relatively small difference between the Applicant’s claimed and assigned ages.
45. Ms Markey acknowledged that she was not trained in carrying out age assessments, but said that she believed the Applicant to be his claimed age on the basis of her interactions with him in a casework capacity over a long period of time. She had a lot of experience working with young people over 18 and many of those who used the service had PTSD or trauma and some also had epilepsy; the Applicant presented as more immature than other Afghan young people she was working with. Her experience of the Applicant was that he was often very confused, forgetful and found it difficult to concentrate, and that he exhibited a range of behaviours, including loss of temper and the need for support in obtaining help from Young Roots or the council, which together led her to believe that he was his claimed age. Considering all of the different factors, including Dr Connor’s report, there was nothing pointing her to a conclusion that the Applicant was a different age to his claimed age. Ms Markey confirmed that the Applicant’s age did not affect his ability to obtain accommodation or support. She said that he had been most upset by not being with his younger peers in the hostel and in college. In re-examination she confirmed that Young Roots did not always refer young people for age assessments and would not give evidence on their behalf if that was not felt to be appropriate.
46. Ms Rashidi-Khaki gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. She confirmed that she had been the Applicant’s caseworker since 5 February 2024 and had observed him interacting with peers at the Young Roots youth club. She stated that the Applicant presented as requiring more supervision and support than other young people to navigate administrative tasks such as resolving a council tax issue and that at the youth club he chose to associate with individuals who were aged between 16 and 18 rather than older peers. In her experience that was a strong indication of age as young people using the club tended to associate with others their own age. She accepted in cross-examination that in general the role of caseworkers was to support the young people they worked with, but confirmed that in past cases she had not provided a witness statement for age assessment proceedings where she had not felt comfortable doing so. In the past year she had worked with 6 or 7 age disputed young people but had provided witness statements only in the Applicant’s age assessment proceedings and one other case.
47. Mr Bronte gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. He had taught the Applicant up to July 2024. He stated that the Applicant had difficulty focusing on one subject and had presented as younger than the 18 or 19 year olds he taught. The Applicant had associated with younger peers; for example, when caught smoking outside, the Applicant and the younger students aged 16 or 17 would hide, but the older students would continue to smoke. He made a number of generalised comments about his experience of the demeanour of Afghan students in their late teens.
Discussion and findings
48. My task is to determine the Applicant’s age and date of birth on the balance of probabilities and on the basis of all the documentary and oral evidence before me.
49. To summarise the evidence which directly addresses the Applicant’s age:
a. The Applicant claims never to have known his date of birth. He claims that was told by his uncle shortly after he was moved to adult accommodation in January 2023 that he was then 16, and was told by his mother 2-3 months before the age assessment began (on 8 April 2024) that he was turning 17, giving a date of birth of January 2007;
b. The Respondent’s age assessment assessed the Applicant as having a date of birth of 31 January 2005;
c. The Applicant’s date of birth was recorded as 5 January 2005 in his KIU assessment on arrival to the UK and the Applicant confirmed January 2005 in an interview three days later;
d. The Young Roots caseworkers who have interacted with the Applicant over time are of the view that he is his claimed age (18) rather than his assessed age (20), giving a year of birth of 2007;
e. The Applicant’s tazkira gives a year of birth corresponding to either 2007 or 2008 in the Gregorian calendar.
50. I turn first to the Respondent’s age assessment. This claim is one of the first cases involving an age assessment carried out by the NAAB under ss50-51 Nationality and Borders Act 2022. On behalf of the Respondent Lord Murray emphasised the significance of the statutory framework established by the 2022 Act and submitted that it was appropriate for the Upper Tribunal to give greater weight to the views of NAAB age assessors because of their independence, skill and specialist training as described in the witness statement of Yvonne Shearwood. He submitted that Parliament had chosen in s51(3) of the Act to make NAAB age assessments binding on the Secretary of State when exercising immigration functions demonstrated the reliability and quality of the assessment process and outcomes.
51. Whilst I acknowledge the statutory framework and the evidence of Ms Shearwood, it would not in my view be appropriate, in the context of a fact-finding hearing in an individual case, to give general guidance as to the weight to be attached to an NAAB age assessment. It is clear from the caselaw that an age assessment does not give rise to any presumption as to whether an age-disputed young person is a child or an adult (R (HAM) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin), R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590). The task of the Upper Tribunal in a fact-finding hearing such as this is not changed by the statutory framework in ss50-51 NABA 2022. The evidence in each age assessment case must be assessed on its own merits.
52. The age assessment in this case is impressively lengthy and detailed, and was based on information gathered in a series of interviews over a period of four days. The Applicant does not criticise the assessment process or methodology. I accept that the age assessment in this case was both Merton-compliant and procedurally fair, and that both age assessors were experienced social workers who have received specialist training from the NAAB. I give considerable weight to the assessment which was echoed by the witness statements of the two assessors.
53. However, in assessing the Applicant’s age I also have the benefit of significant additional evidence which was not before the assessors. First, there is the unchallenged expert medical evidence. At the time of the age assessment the Applicant’s PTSD and adjustment disorder had not been diagnosed and his epilepsy was both undiagnosed and untreated. That is a significant factor in the Applicant’s case because of the weight given by the assessors to his demeanour and interactions during the assessment, including the lack of detail and inconsistencies in his account and his inability to remember or answer questions about his age or the passing of time. The assessors characterised that as evasiveness or a deliberate attempt to deflect questioning, which in their view indicated that the Applicant was older than claimed.
54. I accept Professor Koepp’s view that untreated epilepsy was likely to have affected the Applicant’s memory, concentration and recall and his ability to give a detailed and consistent account of past events, particularly. I also give considerable weight to Dr Connor’s view that the Applicant’s cognitive function is well below average and exceptionally low in areas including concentration, attention and comprehension, and that his ability to remember events with emotional significance is especially likely to be impaired by his PTSD.
55. I note that the Applicant also struggled to remember details in his asylum interview and that both his foster carer and Ms Markey commented on his difficulties in retaining information at the time of the assessment. On the basis of the medical and other evidence, I consider that the Applicant’s inability to recall details in the age assessment, and the inconsistencies between answers given in his asylum interview and the age assessment, were more likely to be due to his mental health, epilepsy and impaired cognitive functioning rather than a deliberate attempt to evade or deflect questions about his age. I also consider that the assessors’ conclusion that the Applicant was deliberately withholding information was not consistent with his provision of the tazkira, his consent for his family to be contacted, and his active participation in the lengthy age assessment process.
56. Second, I also have the benefit of Dr Zadeh and Dr Giustozzi’s reports, which confirm the authenticity of the Applicant’s tazkira. The Respondent did not take issue with the expert reports and did not challenge the authenticity of the tazkira. I accept that the tazkira is an authentic document. Although the tazkira is of limited assistance in determining the Applicant’s age for the reasons set out below, I reject the conclusion of the age assessors that it was not genuine and was instead a document created to support the Applicant’s claimed age, which again was a material factor in the age assessment.
57. Third, I also had the benefit of written and oral evidence from Ms Markey and Ms Rashidi-Khaki. Although the age assessment included observations from the Applicant’s social worker, she had at the time of the assessment only worked with the Applicant for a period of four months and had seen him on a monthly basis. She had not observed the Applicant with other young people.
58. Ms Markey gave clear and credible evidence based on her personal experience of the Applicant over a significant period of time. She was careful not to overstate her evidence and frankly acknowledged the difficulties of assessing age in the Applicant’s case. Ms Rashidi-Khaki’s interactions with the Applicant were more limited than those of Ms Markey but she was also careful to limit her evidence to her personal experience of the Applicant and observations of him interacting with other young people at the Young Roots service over a period of time. On the basis of their interactions with the Applicant, both witnesses were firmly of the view that he was his claimed age rather than older. Because both Ms Markey and Ms Rashidi-Khaki had had more interactions with the Applicant and had done so over a longer period of time, and because Ms Rashidi-Khaki had observed him interacting with peers, I preferred their evidence to the views of the Applicant’s social worker contained in the age assessment and I give their evidence significant weight.
59. I did not find Mr Bronte’s evidence of assistance. His view that the Applicant was his claimed age was based largely on broad and stereotypical generalisations about the demeanour and cultural norms of Afghan young people rather than on personal observations of or interactions with the Applicant himself. I have not given weight to his evidence.
60. As outlined above, although I give the age assessment significant weight, the additional evidence before me in my view undermines the basis for the assessors’ conclusion that the Applicant was not his claimed age.
61. As part of the assessment, the assessors considered a document from the Swiss authorities in which a person with the same name as the Applicant was recorded as giving a birth date of 5 July 1999. The Applicant has been consistent in the age assessment and subsequently that the document did not relate to him and Dr Zadeh has subsequently provided a handwriting analysis report confirming that there are significant differences between the Applicant’s signature and that on the Swiss document. I find that the document does not relate to the Applicant. As the Respondent’s skeleton argument confirmed that the Swiss document was not given significant weight in the assessment, I have not considered it further.
62. I turn then to the tazkira. The Applicant provided his tazkira to Croydon Council on 12 December 2023. As outlined above, I accept the tazkira’s authenticity. However, it is of limited assistance in determining the Applicant’s age, for two reasons. First, and most obviously, the tazkira does not give a date of birth and identifies a year of birth which corresponds to either 2007 or 2008. Second, the Applicant’s evidence is that the tazkira was obtained by his father and the Applicant was not present when the tazkira was issued. The statement in the tazkira that ‘based on physical appearance’ the Applicant was aged 12 at the time of issue therefore would appear to be based solely on the passport-style photograph of the Applicant which is affixed to the top of the tazkira. Physical appearance is not a reliable basis for assessing age, and is even less so when observations are based upon a head-and-shoulders photograph. Although I accept the tazkira as genuine, the reliance on a photograph reduces the weight which can be given to the tazkira as probative evidence of the Applicant’s age. I take the tazkira into account but do not give it significant weight.
63. I approached the Applicant’s evidence bearing in mind the unchallenged expert medical evidence from Professor Koepp, Dr Connor and Dr Bisht as well as the Presidential guidance on vulnerable witnesses. I accept that the Applicant was, at the time of his journey from Afghanistan to the UK and during the age assessment process, suffering from untreated epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder. I consider that the Applicant’s epilepsy and his post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder, as well as his impaired cognitive function, are likely to have impaired his ability to recall details or to give a consistent timeline of past events, both during the age assessment process and in these proceedings.
64. There were some inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence. Some of the inconsistencies related to his journey to the UK, including whether he had been interviewed in a particular country and the timing of his journey. I do not place weight on those inconsistencies, which were of limited relevance to determining the Applicant’s age and which I considered to be largely due to the Applicant’s cognitive and mental health impairment.
65. The most obvious inconsistency in the Applicant’s evidence is that although he claimed not to know his date of birth, he was recorded as providing a specific date of birth on arrival to the UK. The Applicant’s explanation in his witness statements was that he was advised by other migrants with whom he was travelling that he had to give a date of birth in order to apply for asylum. He therefore gave a random birthdate at his screening interview, and when asked a few days later was unable to remember precisely what date he had given. In oral evidence, however, the Applicant stated that he had only given his age on arrival and had not provided a date of birth.
66. The Applicant’s explanation for having given a date of birth on arrival was rejected by the age assessors as not credible; they concluded that the Applicant had always known that he was born in January 2005 but had not known the day. The assessors noted that the Applicant did not raise any objection to his recorded age until he was placed in adult accommodation and there was no record of his objections until October 2023, a year after his arrival to the UK.
67. On balance, and considering the evidence as a whole, I accept the Applicant’s written evidence. The Applicant has given a relatively consistent account of his background in Afghanistan and I note that the assessors accepted that his lack of knowledge of birth dates was consistent with anecdotal evidence about Afghan cultural norms. I find it credible that he does not know his exact date of birth and did not know his age when he left Afghanistan. I also note that the Applicant was also unaware in his asylum interview and the assessment of other significant dates or time periods, including the year the Taliban regained power in Afghanistan or how long he had been in the UK; that seemed to me consistent with the very low cognitive performance and memory issues identified by Dr Connor and Professor Koepp.
68. I also accept that the Applicant was advised by other migrants during his journey to give a date of birth on arrival in order to claim asylum; that was consistent both with the Applicant’s account of travelling with and being helped by other migrants and with the evidence of Ms Markey that the Applicant frequently asked for advice and needed support from older people when dealing with official or administrative processes. I do not accept the Applicant’s oral evidence that he did not provide a date on arrival but only a year of birth or his age; that is not consistent with the date recorded in the KIU intake assessment or with the subsequent interview in his asylum accommodation. I interpret the Applicant’s answer in interview on 28 October 2022 as consistent with attempting to remember an arbitrary date which he had previously given.
69. The timing of the Applicant’s challenge to his recorded age was a central feature of the age assessment and the Respondent’s case before me, it being suggested that the Applicant only challenged his age in order to obtain local authority accommodation and that his claimed age was therefore not credible. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that he was not initially aware that his age might have a significant impact on the support that was offered him. He does not appear to have been advised at the KIU or in his initial accommodation of the potential significance of his recorded age. It is in my view credible that he did not become aware of its significance until he was transferred to adult accommodation in January 2023. That is consistent with Croydon Council records which were before me in the bundle. I also accept Ms Markey’s unchallenged evidence that (i) when first referred to Young Roots, the Applicant told her that he was not his recorded age but ‘it didn’t matter’ and was not a problem, and (ii) the Applicant had told her early on that he would rather be street homeless than return to accommodation with older men. The overall evidence, which paints a consistent picture of the Applicant as struggling to understand statutory processes and needing considerable support to engage with the authorities, does not support the Respondent’s view that the Applicant was seeking to challenge his age to obtain an entitlement to additional support and that the timing of the challenge undermined the credibility of his claimed age.
70. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that when he was moved to adult accommodation in early 2023 and realised that his age was significant, he asked his uncle about his age and was told that he was then 16. I also accept his evidence that his mother told him in early 2024 that he was about to turn 17.
71. Considering all the documentary and oral evidence as a whole, I find that on the balance of probabilities the Applicant is his claimed age and that he was born in 2007. As it is not possible to determine his exact day and month of birth, I assign 1 January and declare that his date of birth was 1 January 2007, making him 18 as at the date of the hearing before me.
~~~~0~~~~
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
IN THE MATTER OF A CLAIM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
BETWEEN:
THE KING on the application of
SS
(Anonymity order made)
Applicant
-and-
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Hirst
HAVNG considered all documents lodged and having heard Ms. A. Benfield of counsel, instructed by Osbornes Law for the Applicant and Lord Murray of counsel, instructed for the Respondent at a hearing held on 29 to 31 July 2025
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s date of birth is 1 January 2007.
(2) The Applicant should hereafter be treated in accordance with his claimed age and provided with support and services on that basis by the London Borough of Croydon in accordance with the Children Act 1989.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s claim for judicial review is allowed for the reasons in the attached judgment.
(2) The Respondent age assessment and decision notice dated 18 June 2024 are hereby quashed.
(3) The order for anonymity made by the Administrative Court remains in force.
Costs
(4) The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs of the claim, to be assessed if not agreed.
(5) There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.
Permission to appeal
(6) The Respondent shall file any application for permission to appeal, in writing, by 4pm 7 days from the date this order is sent to the parties. In the event that submissions are filed the Applicant may file written submissions in response within 7 days thereafter and the Tribunal will thereafter consider the application on the papers. In the event that an application is not made by the Respondent then permission to appeal is refused.
(7) Time to file any onward notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CPR 52.3 and CPR 52.12, is extended and shall run from the date of the Upper Tribunal’s decision on the Respondent’s application for permission or, if no application is made pursuant to paragraph 6 of this order, from 7 days after the date this order is sent to the parties.
Dated 2 December 2025
Case No: JR-2025-LON-000432
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
2nd December 2025
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of SS
(Anonymity order made)
Applicant
- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Antonia Benfield
(instructed by Osbornes Solicitors LLP) for the Applicant
Lord Murray of Blidworth
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 29-31 July 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Applicant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Applicant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Applicant either directly or indirectly. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
Judge Hirst:
1. The Applicant challenges the Respondent’s age assessment dated 10 May 2024 which assessed him as being then 19 years old (now 20) with a birth date of 31 January 2005. The Applicant’s case is that he was born in 2007 and is currently 18 years old.
2. This judgment follows a fact-finding hearing on 29-31 July 2025 for the purpose of determining the Applicant’s age and date of birth. For the reasons set out below, I have concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant is 18 years old and that his date of birth is 1 January 2007.
Background
3. The Applicant is a national of Afghanistan. He fled Afghanistan shortly after the Taliban returned to power in August 2021, and having travelled through Europe arrived in the UK by small boat on 23 October 2022 and claimed asylum.
4. The Applicant underwent a screening interview on 25 October 2022 at which his date of birth was recorded as 5 January 2005. He was placed in Home Office hotel accommodation for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. On 28 October 2022 an interview carried out at the hotel recorded that the Claimant said he knew he was born in 2005 in the month of January but did not know the date.
5. On 5 January 2023, having turned 18 on his recorded date of birth, the Applicant was moved to adult asylum support accommodation. He later left that accommodation to stay with a family friend. That arrangement broke down and by late October 2023 he was homeless and rough sleeping. He presented to Young Roots, a youth support charity, who referred him to the London Borough of Croydon (‘Croydon’). On 1 November 2023 Croydon placed the Applicant in local authority foster care.
6. On 12 December 2023 the Applicant provided Croydon with a copy of his Afghan tazkira. On 20 December 2023 Croydon referred the Applicant to the Respondent’s National Age Assessment Board (‘NAAB’) for an age assessment under s50 Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
7. On 25 January 2024 the Home Office recognised the Applicant as a refugee and granted him leave to remain until 15 January 2029.
8. On 28 March 2024 the NAAB commenced the age assessment and information gathering sessions were held on 10, 16, 17 and 24 April 2024. The age assessment decision, which was dated 10 May 2024, was communicated to the Applicant on 18 June 2024. The Respondent concluded that the Applicant was an adult then aged 19 with a birth date of 31 January 2005.
9. On 11 September 2024 the Applicant’s solicitor provided the NAAB with two expert reports from Dr Antonio Giustozzi and Dr Jawed Hassan Zadeh authenticating the Afghan tazkira, along with an observation report from Mr Philip Bronte, the Applicant’s teacher at college. On 13 September 2024 the Applicant’s solicitor provided a further observation report from Ms Elizabeth Markey, the Head of Service at Young Roots in Croydon.
10. On 17 September 2024 the Applicant lodged this claim for judicial review in the Administrative Court with an application for a stay to enable the NAAB to consider the further material. On 19 September 2024 the NAAB declined to carry out a further age assessment on the basis that the statutory threshold for a further assessment was deemed not to have been met.
11. On 10 February 2025 the Administrative Court granted permission and the claim was transferred to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing to determine the Applicant’s age.
Preliminary matters
12. At the outset of the hearing I determined two outstanding applications. The Applicant sought permission to adduce a report by Professor Koepp, a consultant neurologist, on the impact of the Applicant’s epilepsy on his cognition and recall, and a handwriting analysis report by Dr Zadeh commenting on a Swiss document referred to in the Respondent’s age assessment. As both reports seemed to me to be potentially relevant to the assessment of the Applicant’s age, I granted permission to adduce both reports.
13. The Respondent made an application for permission to rely on a witness statement by Yvonne Shearwood, and for a direction substituting the National Age Assessment Board as respondent in these proceedings. I granted permission to rely on Ms Shearwood’s statement. As the issue of the correct respondent had been raised only shortly before the hearing, I indicated that I would determine that part of the application at the end of the hearing and requested written submissions from the parties. In the event, the Respondent did not pursue the application to substitute and I therefore did not determine that part of the application.
The legal framework
14. The role of the Upper Tribunal in these proceedings is to determine, on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant’s age and date of birth.
15. The age assessment in this case was carried out under the provisions of Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Section 50 of the Act provides that a local authority may refer an age-disputed young person to a ‘designated person’ for an age assessment. A designated person is an official of the Secretary of State who is designated to conduct age assessments under s50 or 51. Section 51 of the Act provides that an age assessment carried out by a designated person is binding on the Secretary of State and immigration officers when exercising immigration functions.
16. Although s53 of the 2022 Act permits the Secretary of State to make regulations about the processes or methodology to be used in age assessments, at the time of the hearing there was no statutorily prescribed procedure. The age assessment in this case therefore remains subject to the principles and guidance developed in a substantial body of caselaw, starting with R(B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] 4 All ER 280 (‘Merton’) and developed in a number of more recent cases. The core principles relevant to a fact-finding age assessment hearing such as this one include the following:
a. The age of an individual is a hard-edged question of fact, which is for the reviewing court to determine on all of the evidence before it, including fresh evidence not available to the age assessor(s) and oral evidence: R (A) v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8;
b. Neither party bears the burden of proof and there is no presumption either way as to whether the individual is a child or an adult: R (HAM) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin), R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590;
c. Observations based on an individual’s physical appearance or demeanour are to be treated with caution except in the most clear-cut cases: Merton, NA v LB Croydon [2009] EWHC 2357 (Admin):
d. The views of other professionals who have come into contact with the young person can and should be taken into account in the assessment: R (AM) v Solihull MBC [2012] UKUT 00118 (IAC);
e. The decision-maker should assess credibility “in the round”, having regard to all relevant evidence including expert evidence: MVN v LB Greenwich [2015] EWHC Civ 1942.
17. Those principles are reflected in the non-statutory guidance issued by the NAAB on the conduct of age assessments under ss50-51 of the 2022 Act, and the best practice guidance on age assessment published by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (‘the ADCS guidance’).
Evidence
18. I had before me a significant quantity of evidence, including a hearing bundle of 1,051 pages together with a supplementary bundle of 171 pages and the reports of Professor Koepp and Dr Zadeh which were filed separately, as well as a bundle of authorities. During the hearing I was also sent further materials including policy documents from Young Roots, the Home Office response to the recommendations made by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration in his report on age assessments, and a further authority on which the Respondent wished to rely. I have given careful consideration to all the written evidence which was before me, including documents not referred to below, but observe that some of it was not relied on by either party and whilst relevant to the public law issues in the claim for judicial review, was of limited if any relevance to the fact-finding hearing.
19. It was common ground that both the ‘deeming’ age decision made by the Youth Court on 9 August 2024 under s99 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 that the Applicant should be treated as an adult in his criminal proceedings, and the subsequent reversal of that decision by the Inner London Crown Court dated 11 December 2024 (both of which were included in the bundle), were not themselves of probative value in assessing the Applicant’s age as both decisions relied on a subset of the evidence before me. Accordingly I have not considered either decision further or placed any weight on them in reaching my conclusions as to the Applicant’s age and date of birth. Nor have I given further consideration to the witness statement of Katie McFadden which addressed the Crown Court ruling.
20. Mr Amir Faizi, a paralegal at the Applicant’s solicitor’s firm, provided a witness statement detailing a telephone call with the Applicant’s mother on 9 September 2024 in which the Applicant’s age was discussed. Mr Taylor, the Applicant’s solicitor, also provided two witness statements explaining the background to the Applicant’s case and the circumstances in which the Applicant provided his witness statements. Neither Mr Faizi nor Mr Taylor gave oral evidence.
21. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Youngs and Ms Watts (the age assessors) made written witness statements explaining the age assessment process in the Applicant’s case and their conclusions on his age. Neither gave oral evidence.
22. Ms Yvonne Shearwood also provided a witness statement on behalf of the Respondent but did not give oral evidence. Ms Shearwood is the Lead for the NAAB and her statement addressed the processes for NAAB age assessments and the training which age assessors receive.
23. In addition to the documentary evidence I heard oral evidence from the Applicant and from Ms Elizabeth Markey, Ms Shonam Khaki and Mr Philip Bronte on behalf of the Applicant. The evidence of the witnesses is recorded in their witness statements and the record of proceedings and is summarised as necessary below.
24. Both counsel provided skeleton arguments in advance of the hearing and Ms Benfield also provided written closing submissions. I am grateful to both counsel for their constructive approach throughout the hearing and for their helpful and concise written and oral submissions.
The Respondent’s age assessment
25. The Respondent’s age assessment was carried out by two social workers, Mr Shane Youngs and Ms Hannah Watts. Both made witness statements for the hearing which I have read and considered carefully together with the assessment and supporting documents.
26. The age assessment process involved three “information-gathering” sessions at which the Applicant was interviewed, and then a “minded to” meeting at which the Applicant was asked to clarify discrepancies. The assessment decision runs to 61 pages and was accompanied by the notes of the interviews. The assessors concluded that the Applicant was an adult primarily because:
a. He had given his date of birth as 5 January 2005 in his initial assessment at the Kent Intake Unit (‘KIU’) and all subsequent alterations in his narrative had reduced his age. He was not able to give a credible reason why the age information recorded in his KIU interview was incorrect;
b. He had subsequently corroborated January 2005 in his hotel interview on 28 October 2022;
c. He had not raised any objections to his recorded age until he was placed in adult accommodation, approximately three months after he entered the UK. There was no record of his challenging his age until he had made unsuccessful attempts to find alternative housing;
d. He had given inconsistent accounts as to how he got his tazkira in Afghanistan;
e. He had not presented his tazkira until 11 months after he claimed he had realised his age was incorrect and 2 months after he had presented to the local authority as a minor, which led the assessors to conclude that the tazkira was created to support his claimed age;
f. His lack of memory during the age assessment interviews led the assessors to conclude that he was deliberately withholding information. In particular, they recorded that he had answered “I don’t know” at least 158 times and “I can’t remember” no less than 49 times during the age assessment interviews;
g. His claimed lack of knowledge of time or calendars was at odds with the detailed timelines he had provided of his journey to the UK, again leading the assessors to conclude that he was attempting to mislead them as to his true age.
The Applicant’s tazkira
27. The Applicant’s Afghan tazkira was sent to him after his arrival in the UK and presented to Croydon on 12 December 2023. The date of issue of the tazkira is given as “11/02/1398 [01 May 2019]”. Under ‘Date of Birth and Age’ the translated copy of the tazkira records
“Based on physical appearance age assessed as (12) Twelve-year-old in 1398 [2019/2020]”
The Gregorian calendar dates in square brackets have been added by the translator with a note explaining that where a day or month is not specified in the Afghan calendar, the resulting date may be one of two years.
28. Dr Jawad Hassan Zadeh provided an expert report on the authenticity of the tazkira. He examined the details, format, and language of the tazkira and confirms that in his opinion the tazkira is a genuine document. Dr Zadeh’s report also provides details of the process by which a tazkira is issued, which involves an age assessor viewing a child’s appearance and asking questions of the accompanying parent or guardian, then determining the child’s age.
29. Dr Antonio Giustozzi also provided an expert report in which he confirms that a researcher authenticated the tazkira by visiting the Kabul Civil Registration Directorate. The report confirms that the tazkira presented by the Applicant matched that in records of the Directorate and had been confirmed as authentic by the Directorate’s head of the inspection department.
Medical expert reports
30. Dr Jamie Connor, a consultant clinical psychologist, provided a report dated 22 October 2024 produced for the Applicant’s criminal proceedings. Dr Connor noted that during his assessment the Applicant presented with behaviours more commonly observed in younger adolescents and that although adult cognitive measures were used “his behaviour and overall presentation indicated a cognitive and emotional functioning level more aligned with that of a child”. Dr Connor assessed the Applicant with PTSD and advised that he be referred for a neurological assessment. The Applicant’s cognitive function, which was assessed using the standardised WAIS-II test, demonstrated scores well below average in every area other than vocabulary, and exceptionally low scores in the areas of concentration, attention and comprehension. Dr Connor’s view was that the Applicant’s cognitive performance could reflect either a developmental age or maturity level not appropriately assessed by an adult neuropsychological test, or possible organic brain damage from a head injury.
31. Dr Vivek Bisht, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, provided a report dated 25 November 2024 also for the criminal proceedings. Dr Bisht confirmed the diagnosis of PTSD together with adjustment disorder and also recommended a head scan to rule out traumatic brain injury.
32. Professor Matthias Koepp, a consultant neurologist and epileptologist, provided a report dated 25 June 2025. He confirmed that the Applicant suffers from epilepsy which had been present during his journey to the UK and was untreated until early 2025. Untreated epilepsy would affect memory, concentration, recall and cognitive performance, and it was plausible that it could lead to confusion and gaps in the Applicant’s memory and recall and affect his ability to give a detailed and consistent account of his life in Afghanistan. He noted that the Applicant’s MRI scan had identified a developmental abnormality (heterotopia) in his brain indicating a developmental disorder affecting his maturity and cognitive function.
The Applicant’s evidence
33. The Applicant gave evidence via an Afghan Dari interpreter on the first day of the hearing. It was agreed that the Applicant should be treated as a vulnerable witness. Both parties ensured that the questions put to the Applicant were in simplified terms and that he was shown documents before being asked questions about them. He was offered a break during the morning’s evidence and was supported by Ms Markey throughout. The Applicant was unwell and did not attend court on the second day, but Ms Benfield confirmed that he wished the hearing to proceed in his absence and he returned to hear submissions on the third day.
34. The Applicant adopted his witness statements dated 10 October 2024, 11 April 2025 and 24 July 2025. In those statements the Applicant said that he had not known his age or birthdate whilst living in Afghanistan, as it had never been discussed and it was not important in Afghan culture. He had been to school but had left after grade 6 and was then aged around 14. He left Afghanistan a month or two after the fall of Kabul in August 2021. He did not know his age or birthdate when he left Afghanistan. He had not known the Afghan calendar, and only became aware of months and years when he came to the UK.
35. The Applicant’s journey was organised and paid for by his uncle. He travelled by car and coach to Tehran, then crossed the Turkish border and travelled by car and on foot to Istanbul where he stayed with a friend of his uncle’s for several months. He then crossed with others into Bulgaria, where they were detained and beaten by the Bulgarian authorities before being returned to the Turkish side of the border. The Applicant returned to Istanbul, where he worked in an industrial laundry for several months before deciding to travel onwards with the assistance of a second agent arranged by his uncle. The Applicant crossed from Turkey to Greece by boat and then travelled by foot and car to Macedonia. The Applicant then continued his journey through Serbia, Hungary and Austria where he was detained by the authorities in a migrant camp.
36. After leaving the camp he travelled to Switzerland. In his witness statements the Applicant said that he had been stopped by Swiss officials but was not the person named in the document considered by the age assessors. He had told Swiss officials that he was 16, because that was the age given by another young person he was travelling with who appeared to be a similar age to him. In oral evidence, however, the Applicant stated that he had not been stopped by officials in Switzerland, nor asked about his name or age. It was in Austria that he had told officials that he was 16. In Switzerland the Applicant joined a group of young migrants headed to France. He travelled by train without a ticket, eventually reaching Calais where an agent arranged for him to travel to the UK by boat.
37. When he travelled to the UK he was advised by other travellers that he would need to give a date of birth in order to claim asylum, and so he gave the Home Office a random date of 5 January 2005. In his hotel interview on 28 October 2022, he had only remembered the month and year he had provided. He did not understand at the time the significance of his age or birthdate, or that providing the wrong date could affect his rights. He had not known anything about the Gregorian calendar at that time.
38. After he was transferred to the adult hotel (in January 2023) and saw that the other people were a lot older than he was, the Applicant realised that his age could affect how he was treated. He asked his uncle about his age; his uncle told him that he had been 14 when he left Afghanistan and was then around 16.
39. The Applicant said that he had attempted to tell staff in the adult hotel that he was a child but had been sent an email with forms in English which he was unable to read. He then thought nobody was going to do anything about his situation and he started to care less about the issue of his age. After leaving the adult hotel accommodation he had stayed with a family friend but that broke down when the Applicant was unable to pay rent. The Applicant sought council accommodation but was refused, and then slept rough in a park before a friend took him to Young Roots.
40. His tazkira had been obtained in Afghanistan by his father and he had not been present. He had seen his tazkira in Afghanistan on one occasion when it was requested by his school, but he had not read it at that time and did not know it was important. When asked why the tazkira had been provided to Croydon only 11 months after he realised his age was incorrectly recorded by the Home Office, he said that he had been advised that he could challenge his age and had obtained it for that reason.
41. A few months before the age assessment, the Applicant’s mother had told him that he was about to turn 17.
42. The Applicant said that he had experienced epileptic seizures during his journey to the UK, including major seizures where he had collapsed and been revived by other migrants. He had continued to have frequent seizures in the UK, at least twice a week, but since his diagnosis he had been given medication which had reduced the frequency. He had been asked a lot of questions in the age assessment and was having memory problems at the time. He thought the age assessors were trying to put him in a difficult position and test his memory, which he found very stressful. He had answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t remember’ when he didn’t know the answer to the questions he was asked.
43. In re-examination the Applicant said that he had said he was 17 on arrival in the UK because he had told officials in Austria that he was 16 and a lot of time had passed since then, so he had said 17. He said that he had given a day and month of birth but denied that he had said anything about the year.
Witness evidence
44. Ms Markey gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. In cross-examination she confirmed that she knew the Applicant in her caseworking capacity. When upon his referral to Young Roots she had checked the Applicant’s details with him, he had stated in relation to his recorded age that “I’m not big like that but it doesn’t matter”. She took the Applicant’s reference to ‘big men’ at the adult hostel to mean people older than him in an environment he was not comfortable with. She agreed that the Applicant’s physical appearance and demeanour were not decisive, and noted that this was a difficult case because there was a relatively small difference between the Applicant’s claimed and assigned ages.
45. Ms Markey acknowledged that she was not trained in carrying out age assessments, but said that she believed the Applicant to be his claimed age on the basis of her interactions with him in a casework capacity over a long period of time. She had a lot of experience working with young people over 18 and many of those who used the service had PTSD or trauma and some also had epilepsy; the Applicant presented as more immature than other Afghan young people she was working with. Her experience of the Applicant was that he was often very confused, forgetful and found it difficult to concentrate, and that he exhibited a range of behaviours, including loss of temper and the need for support in obtaining help from Young Roots or the council, which together led her to believe that he was his claimed age. Considering all of the different factors, including Dr Connor’s report, there was nothing pointing her to a conclusion that the Applicant was a different age to his claimed age. Ms Markey confirmed that the Applicant’s age did not affect his ability to obtain accommodation or support. She said that he had been most upset by not being with his younger peers in the hostel and in college. In re-examination she confirmed that Young Roots did not always refer young people for age assessments and would not give evidence on their behalf if that was not felt to be appropriate.
46. Ms Rashidi-Khaki gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. She confirmed that she had been the Applicant’s caseworker since 5 February 2024 and had observed him interacting with peers at the Young Roots youth club. She stated that the Applicant presented as requiring more supervision and support than other young people to navigate administrative tasks such as resolving a council tax issue and that at the youth club he chose to associate with individuals who were aged between 16 and 18 rather than older peers. In her experience that was a strong indication of age as young people using the club tended to associate with others their own age. She accepted in cross-examination that in general the role of caseworkers was to support the young people they worked with, but confirmed that in past cases she had not provided a witness statement for age assessment proceedings where she had not felt comfortable doing so. In the past year she had worked with 6 or 7 age disputed young people but had provided witness statements only in the Applicant’s age assessment proceedings and one other case.
47. Mr Bronte gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. He had taught the Applicant up to July 2024. He stated that the Applicant had difficulty focusing on one subject and had presented as younger than the 18 or 19 year olds he taught. The Applicant had associated with younger peers; for example, when caught smoking outside, the Applicant and the younger students aged 16 or 17 would hide, but the older students would continue to smoke. He made a number of generalised comments about his experience of the demeanour of Afghan students in their late teens.
Discussion and findings
48. My task is to determine the Applicant’s age and date of birth on the balance of probabilities and on the basis of all the documentary and oral evidence before me.
49. To summarise the evidence which directly addresses the Applicant’s age:
a. The Applicant claims never to have known his date of birth. He claims that was told by his uncle shortly after he was moved to adult accommodation in January 2023 that he was then 16, and was told by his mother 2-3 months before the age assessment began (on 8 April 2024) that he was turning 17, giving a date of birth of January 2007;
b. The Respondent’s age assessment assessed the Applicant as having a date of birth of 31 January 2005;
c. The Applicant’s date of birth was recorded as 5 January 2005 in his KIU assessment on arrival to the UK and the Applicant confirmed January 2005 in an interview three days later;
d. The Young Roots caseworkers who have interacted with the Applicant over time are of the view that he is his claimed age (18) rather than his assessed age (20), giving a year of birth of 2007;
e. The Applicant’s tazkira gives a year of birth corresponding to either 2007 or 2008 in the Gregorian calendar.
50. I turn first to the Respondent’s age assessment. This claim is one of the first cases involving an age assessment carried out by the NAAB under ss50-51 Nationality and Borders Act 2022. On behalf of the Respondent Lord Murray emphasised the significance of the statutory framework established by the 2022 Act and submitted that it was appropriate for the Upper Tribunal to give greater weight to the views of NAAB age assessors because of their independence, skill and specialist training as described in the witness statement of Yvonne Shearwood. He submitted that Parliament had chosen in s51(3) of the Act to make NAAB age assessments binding on the Secretary of State when exercising immigration functions demonstrated the reliability and quality of the assessment process and outcomes.
51. Whilst I acknowledge the statutory framework and the evidence of Ms Shearwood, it would not in my view be appropriate, in the context of a fact-finding hearing in an individual case, to give general guidance as to the weight to be attached to an NAAB age assessment. It is clear from the caselaw that an age assessment does not give rise to any presumption as to whether an age-disputed young person is a child or an adult (R (HAM) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin), R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590). The task of the Upper Tribunal in a fact-finding hearing such as this is not changed by the statutory framework in ss50-51 NABA 2022. The evidence in each age assessment case must be assessed on its own merits.
52. The age assessment in this case is impressively lengthy and detailed, and was based on information gathered in a series of interviews over a period of four days. The Applicant does not criticise the assessment process or methodology. I accept that the age assessment in this case was both Merton-compliant and procedurally fair, and that both age assessors were experienced social workers who have received specialist training from the NAAB. I give considerable weight to the assessment which was echoed by the witness statements of the two assessors.
53. However, in assessing the Applicant’s age I also have the benefit of significant additional evidence which was not before the assessors. First, there is the unchallenged expert medical evidence. At the time of the age assessment the Applicant’s PTSD and adjustment disorder had not been diagnosed and his epilepsy was both undiagnosed and untreated. That is a significant factor in the Applicant’s case because of the weight given by the assessors to his demeanour and interactions during the assessment, including the lack of detail and inconsistencies in his account and his inability to remember or answer questions about his age or the passing of time. The assessors characterised that as evasiveness or a deliberate attempt to deflect questioning, which in their view indicated that the Applicant was older than claimed.
54. I accept Professor Koepp’s view that untreated epilepsy was likely to have affected the Applicant’s memory, concentration and recall and his ability to give a detailed and consistent account of past events, particularly. I also give considerable weight to Dr Connor’s view that the Applicant’s cognitive function is well below average and exceptionally low in areas including concentration, attention and comprehension, and that his ability to remember events with emotional significance is especially likely to be impaired by his PTSD.
55. I note that the Applicant also struggled to remember details in his asylum interview and that both his foster carer and Ms Markey commented on his difficulties in retaining information at the time of the assessment. On the basis of the medical and other evidence, I consider that the Applicant’s inability to recall details in the age assessment, and the inconsistencies between answers given in his asylum interview and the age assessment, were more likely to be due to his mental health, epilepsy and impaired cognitive functioning rather than a deliberate attempt to evade or deflect questions about his age. I also consider that the assessors’ conclusion that the Applicant was deliberately withholding information was not consistent with his provision of the tazkira, his consent for his family to be contacted, and his active participation in the lengthy age assessment process.
56. Second, I also have the benefit of Dr Zadeh and Dr Giustozzi’s reports, which confirm the authenticity of the Applicant’s tazkira. The Respondent did not take issue with the expert reports and did not challenge the authenticity of the tazkira. I accept that the tazkira is an authentic document. Although the tazkira is of limited assistance in determining the Applicant’s age for the reasons set out below, I reject the conclusion of the age assessors that it was not genuine and was instead a document created to support the Applicant’s claimed age, which again was a material factor in the age assessment.
57. Third, I also had the benefit of written and oral evidence from Ms Markey and Ms Rashidi-Khaki. Although the age assessment included observations from the Applicant’s social worker, she had at the time of the assessment only worked with the Applicant for a period of four months and had seen him on a monthly basis. She had not observed the Applicant with other young people.
58. Ms Markey gave clear and credible evidence based on her personal experience of the Applicant over a significant period of time. She was careful not to overstate her evidence and frankly acknowledged the difficulties of assessing age in the Applicant’s case. Ms Rashidi-Khaki’s interactions with the Applicant were more limited than those of Ms Markey but she was also careful to limit her evidence to her personal experience of the Applicant and observations of him interacting with other young people at the Young Roots service over a period of time. On the basis of their interactions with the Applicant, both witnesses were firmly of the view that he was his claimed age rather than older. Because both Ms Markey and Ms Rashidi-Khaki had had more interactions with the Applicant and had done so over a longer period of time, and because Ms Rashidi-Khaki had observed him interacting with peers, I preferred their evidence to the views of the Applicant’s social worker contained in the age assessment and I give their evidence significant weight.
59. I did not find Mr Bronte’s evidence of assistance. His view that the Applicant was his claimed age was based largely on broad and stereotypical generalisations about the demeanour and cultural norms of Afghan young people rather than on personal observations of or interactions with the Applicant himself. I have not given weight to his evidence.
60. As outlined above, although I give the age assessment significant weight, the additional evidence before me in my view undermines the basis for the assessors’ conclusion that the Applicant was not his claimed age.
61. As part of the assessment, the assessors considered a document from the Swiss authorities in which a person with the same name as the Applicant was recorded as giving a birth date of 5 July 1999. The Applicant has been consistent in the age assessment and subsequently that the document did not relate to him and Dr Zadeh has subsequently provided a handwriting analysis report confirming that there are significant differences between the Applicant’s signature and that on the Swiss document. I find that the document does not relate to the Applicant. As the Respondent’s skeleton argument confirmed that the Swiss document was not given significant weight in the assessment, I have not considered it further.
62. I turn then to the tazkira. The Applicant provided his tazkira to Croydon Council on 12 December 2023. As outlined above, I accept the tazkira’s authenticity. However, it is of limited assistance in determining the Applicant’s age, for two reasons. First, and most obviously, the tazkira does not give a date of birth and identifies a year of birth which corresponds to either 2007 or 2008. Second, the Applicant’s evidence is that the tazkira was obtained by his father and the Applicant was not present when the tazkira was issued. The statement in the tazkira that ‘based on physical appearance’ the Applicant was aged 12 at the time of issue therefore would appear to be based solely on the passport-style photograph of the Applicant which is affixed to the top of the tazkira. Physical appearance is not a reliable basis for assessing age, and is even less so when observations are based upon a head-and-shoulders photograph. Although I accept the tazkira as genuine, the reliance on a photograph reduces the weight which can be given to the tazkira as probative evidence of the Applicant’s age. I take the tazkira into account but do not give it significant weight.
63. I approached the Applicant’s evidence bearing in mind the unchallenged expert medical evidence from Professor Koepp, Dr Connor and Dr Bisht as well as the Presidential guidance on vulnerable witnesses. I accept that the Applicant was, at the time of his journey from Afghanistan to the UK and during the age assessment process, suffering from untreated epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder. I consider that the Applicant’s epilepsy and his post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder, as well as his impaired cognitive function, are likely to have impaired his ability to recall details or to give a consistent timeline of past events, both during the age assessment process and in these proceedings.
64. There were some inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence. Some of the inconsistencies related to his journey to the UK, including whether he had been interviewed in a particular country and the timing of his journey. I do not place weight on those inconsistencies, which were of limited relevance to determining the Applicant’s age and which I considered to be largely due to the Applicant’s cognitive and mental health impairment.
65. The most obvious inconsistency in the Applicant’s evidence is that although he claimed not to know his date of birth, he was recorded as providing a specific date of birth on arrival to the UK. The Applicant’s explanation in his witness statements was that he was advised by other migrants with whom he was travelling that he had to give a date of birth in order to apply for asylum. He therefore gave a random birthdate at his screening interview, and when asked a few days later was unable to remember precisely what date he had given. In oral evidence, however, the Applicant stated that he had only given his age on arrival and had not provided a date of birth.
66. The Applicant’s explanation for having given a date of birth on arrival was rejected by the age assessors as not credible; they concluded that the Applicant had always known that he was born in January 2005 but had not known the day. The assessors noted that the Applicant did not raise any objection to his recorded age until he was placed in adult accommodation and there was no record of his objections until October 2023, a year after his arrival to the UK.
67. On balance, and considering the evidence as a whole, I accept the Applicant’s written evidence. The Applicant has given a relatively consistent account of his background in Afghanistan and I note that the assessors accepted that his lack of knowledge of birth dates was consistent with anecdotal evidence about Afghan cultural norms. I find it credible that he does not know his exact date of birth and did not know his age when he left Afghanistan. I also note that the Applicant was also unaware in his asylum interview and the assessment of other significant dates or time periods, including the year the Taliban regained power in Afghanistan or how long he had been in the UK; that seemed to me consistent with the very low cognitive performance and memory issues identified by Dr Connor and Professor Koepp.
68. I also accept that the Applicant was advised by other migrants during his journey to give a date of birth on arrival in order to claim asylum; that was consistent both with the Applicant’s account of travelling with and being helped by other migrants and with the evidence of Ms Markey that the Applicant frequently asked for advice and needed support from older people when dealing with official or administrative processes. I do not accept the Applicant’s oral evidence that he did not provide a date on arrival but only a year of birth or his age; that is not consistent with the date recorded in the KIU intake assessment or with the subsequent interview in his asylum accommodation. I interpret the Applicant’s answer in interview on 28 October 2022 as consistent with attempting to remember an arbitrary date which he had previously given.
69. The timing of the Applicant’s challenge to his recorded age was a central feature of the age assessment and the Respondent’s case before me, it being suggested that the Applicant only challenged his age in order to obtain local authority accommodation and that his claimed age was therefore not credible. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that he was not initially aware that his age might have a significant impact on the support that was offered him. He does not appear to have been advised at the KIU or in his initial accommodation of the potential significance of his recorded age. It is in my view credible that he did not become aware of its significance until he was transferred to adult accommodation in January 2023. That is consistent with Croydon Council records which were before me in the bundle. I also accept Ms Markey’s unchallenged evidence that (i) when first referred to Young Roots, the Applicant told her that he was not his recorded age but ‘it didn’t matter’ and was not a problem, and (ii) the Applicant had told her early on that he would rather be street homeless than return to accommodation with older men. The overall evidence, which paints a consistent picture of the Applicant as struggling to understand statutory processes and needing considerable support to engage with the authorities, does not support the Respondent’s view that the Applicant was seeking to challenge his age to obtain an entitlement to additional support and that the timing of the challenge undermined the credibility of his claimed age.
70. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that when he was moved to adult accommodation in early 2023 and realised that his age was significant, he asked his uncle about his age and was told that he was then 16. I also accept his evidence that his mother told him in early 2024 that he was about to turn 17.
71. Considering all the documentary and oral evidence as a whole, I find that on the balance of probabilities the Applicant is his claimed age and that he was born in 2007. As it is not possible to determine his exact day and month of birth, I assign 1 January and declare that his date of birth was 1 January 2007, making him 18 as at the date of the hearing before me.
~~~~0~~~~