JR-2025-LON-001825
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
JR-2025-LON-001825
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
ASB
Applicant
and
Liverpool City Council
Respondent
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision
UPON the Tribunal handing down judgment on 2 March 2026
IT IS ORDERED THAT;
1. The Applicant’s date of birth is declared to be 1 July 2008, such that the Applicant is a child at the date of this order.
2. The question of costs shall be determined on written submissions as follows –
(1) The Respondent shall file and serve submissions as to the appropriate order as to costs by 4pm on 30 March 2025.
(2) If the Respondent does not file submissions in accordance with (1), above, the Respondent will be ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs of the claim on the standard basis and for these to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed, unless the Tribunal considers that such an order would be wrong or unfair in all the circumstances.
(3) Where submissions are filed and served by the Respondent, the Applicant may file and serve submissions in reply within 28 days of the service of those submissions.
(4) Where no submissions are filed by the Applicant in accordance with (3), above, the Tribunal will make the Order sought by the Respondent, unless the Tribunal considers that such an order would be wrong or unfair in all the circumstances.
(5) Where submissions are filed by the Applicant, the Respondent shall have 7 days in which to file and serve a reply.
(6) Any written submissions shall comply with the ACO Cost Guidance, dated 2016, in particular they shall not exceed two sides of A4 paper.
Signed: P Lodato
Upper Tribunal Judge Lodato
Dated: 2 March 2026
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): 2 March 2026
Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:
Case No: JR-2025-LON-001825
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Heard at: Phoenix House
20 Rushton Avenue
Bradford
BD3 7BH
2 March 2026
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
ASB
Applicant
- and -
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Bazini
(instructed by Luke and Bridger Law), for the applicant
Mr Johnson
(instructed by Liverpool City Council) for the respondent
Hearing date: 27-28 January 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge Lodato:
Introduction and Legal Framework
1. By order, sealed on 10 June 2025, of Judge Plimmer, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, the applicant was granted permission to challenge, by judicial review proceedings, the decision of the respondent to treat him as an adult. The proceedings were transferred to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal.
2. The matters to be resolved in these proceedings are factual. I must decide the applicant’s age and declare his date of birth. The legal principles to be applied to this fact-finding process were not controversial between the parties. The approach I must adopt is inquisitorial in nature and the key factual issues are to be resolved according to the balance of probabilities. Neither party bears the burden of establishing the standard of proof, but this is the threshold my settled conclusions must reach (see R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590, at [21] and [23]). Guidance as to how decision-makers should approach their task in such matters was provided at [21] of the judgment of Thornton J in R (AB) v Kent County Council [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin). Included among these broad principles was that any benefit of the doubt must go to the claimed unaccompanied asylum-seeking child and that both physical appearance and demeanour were notoriously unreliable indicators of age and that this should not form the exclusive basis for any such finding of fact (see also the guidance provided by Ockleton VP at [15] and [19]-[21] of R (AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 (IAC)). The gaps in reliable scientific methods and the dangers of reaching impressionistic and subjective conclusions about people from far-removed cultures, with unfamiliar experiences, was explained in the leading case of R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] 4 All E.R. 280; [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin), where Stanley Burnton J (as he then was) made the following observations:
[22] The determination of an applicant's age is rendered difficult by the absence of any reliable anthropometric test: for someone who is close to the age of 18, there is no reliable medical or other scientific test to determine whether he or she is over or under 18. The Health of Refugee Children—Guidelines for Paediatricians published in November 1999 by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health states (p 13 (para 5.6)):
'In practice, age determination is extremely difficult to do with certainty, and no single approach to this can be relied on. Moreover, for young people aged 15–18, it is even less possible to be certain about age. There may also be difficulties in determining whether a young person who might be as old as 23 could, in fact, be under the age of 18. Age determination is an inexact science and the margin of error can sometimes be a much as 5 years either side
…
Overall, it is not possible to actually predict the age of an individual from any anthropometric measure, and this should not be attempted. Any assessments that are made should also take into account relevant factors from the child's medical, family and social history.'
[23] Different people living in the same country, with the same culture and diet, mature physically and psychologically at different rates. It is difficult for a layman to determine the age of someone born in this country with any accuracy. A general practitioner is very unlikely to have the knowledge or experience to improve on the accuracy of an intelligent layman. To obtain any reliable medical opinion, one has to go to one of the few paediatricians who have experience in this area. Even they can be of limited help, as in the instant case and is referred to below.
[24] The difficulties are compounded when the young person in question is of an ethnicity, culture, education and background that are foreign, and unfamiliar, to the decision-maker.
[…]
[27] Of course, there may be cases where it is very obvious that a person is under or over 18. In such cases there is normally no need for prolonged inquiry; indeed, if the person is obviously a child, no inquiry at all is called for. The present is not such a case. The difficulty normally only arises in cases, such as the present, where the person concerned is approaching 18 or is only a few years over 18. But the possibility of obvious cases means that it is not possible to prescribe the level or manner of inquiry so as sensibly to cover all cases.
3. An evaluative judgment is required of the evidence in the round which will invariably involve an assessment of the applicant’s credibility.
4. I maintain the anonymity order which was previously made in these proceedings. The applicant claims to have been a child when the litigation began and that is the central issue I must resolve. Taking the applicant’s case at its highest for this purpose, while bearing in mind the fundamental principle of open justice, I am satisfied that the considerations which apply to the assessment of the best interests of children and the need to maintain the privacy of a child party to legal proceedings outweigh the right of the public to know of his identity.
Background Information
5. Below is a summary of the key background events:
• 2 February 2025 – The applicant arrived in the UK by small boat and claimed asylum. The Home Office assessed the applicant’s probable age to be 23 with a putative date of birth of 1 July 2001. The applicant claimed to be 16 at that time with a date of birth of 1 July 2008.
• 3 February 2025 – The applicant underwent a Home Office screening interview.
• 7 February 2025 – Liverpool City Council conducted an Initial Age Assessment. The outcome was that the applicant was assessed to be a “clear and obvious adult” aged 23–25, not a child.
• 29 April 2025 – The judicial review claim was issued in the Administrative Court together with an application for interim relief.
• 10 June 2025 – Judge Plimmer granted permission for the judicial review claim to proceed and refused interim relief; the matter was transferred to the Upper Tribunal (IAC) to determine the applicant’s age.
6. The applicant’s solicitors provided evidence of their analysis of their client’s social media accounts. In Mr Bridger’s witness statement of 7 July 2025, he noted two social media accounts hosted by Facebook and TikTok. The Facebook account was registered on 1 December 2024 with a recorded date of birth of 1 July 2008. The TikTok account was opened on 25 December 2024, but the applicant was said to no longer have access with his last post uploaded on 11 February 2025.
7. The applicant underwent two age assessment procedures. The first was conducted by the Home Office soon after his arrival in the UK. He was treated as an adult after assessment by two Home Office officials. The rationale for reaching this conclusion was:
All initial age decisions begin with initial impression made from visual presentation. An initial impression of age range is formed based on height, facial features including facial hair, skin line/folds, etc; voice tone, and general impression. I observed the applicant has a well-developed jaw line and cheek bones, he has a prominent and protruding adams apple and lines across the neck, he has facial hair on the upper lip and chin. He has old acne scarring on the face, His eyes are sunken into his head and has dark circles under the eyes. He has deep forehead wrinkles and smile lines. There are signs of weathering on the face showing a change in skin tone. He has broad shoulders going past the waist and large hands. The applicant has a confident demeanour and makes eye contact with both officers when being interviewed. He answered questioning in an assured manner. I therefore looked at the applicant to be satisfied with the assessment. In the absence of documentary evidence and based on their size, facial and body hair, behaviour and my experience I am fully satisfied that he is significantly over the age of 18.
Based on the initial age decision by IO B Murphy and IO C Ridley, I am in agreement that the applicant is significantly over the age of 18 – with a DOB of 01/07/2001 and an age assessed age of 23 years of age - and they will be registered on our system as such.
8. It was noted that the applicant could not produce any documents to verify his age. When it was put to the applicant that he was assessed to be an adult, his response was “I told you my age”. The overall conclusion was set out as follows:
There is no clear credible evidence to substantiate the applicant’s claimed age or date of birth. Their physical appearance and demeanour has been assessed as very strongly suggesting that they are significantly over 18 years of age and there is little or no supporting evidence for their claimed age IO B Murphy, IO C Ridley and CIO S Killip are in agreement that he is 23.
9. The respondent’s initial age assessment was conducted five days later on 7 February 2025. He was assessed to be an adult for the following reasons:
Physical Appearance
In considering [ASB]’s physical appearance in isolation, whilst it is recognised that physical appearance alone cannot be used to determine one’s age, it is important to analyse this to use in conjunction with other findings.
[ASB] appears to be 5ft 7 inches tall and is of a slim build. He has dark black afro hair that is long at the top and short on the sides.
[ASB] was observed to have facial hair around his chin area and upper lip. [ASB] was asked if he shaved, he said he did not, however a shaving shadow could be observed.
[ASB] had a visible Adams apple, deep forehead lines and prominent lines on his face and neck which can be attributed to adult maturity.
The assessors acknowledge that factors such as stress, trauma and time spent outside in the elements can impact on physical appearance. However, even when such factors are considered [ASB]’s physical appearance does not align with other 16-17 year-old Sudanese males known to the Local Authority.
[ASB]’s physical presentation suggests that he is an adult. This was put to him in the minded to session.
Demeanour Observations/Developmental considerations
[ASB] presented as older than his claimed age during the assessment due to his confidence and self-assured attitude which would be unusual for an adolescent. He did not present as a teenager would in a stressful situation, for example struggling to maintain eye contact or fidgeting.
[ASB] was observed during the assessment to be an assertive and confident male, and at times over assertive. During points of challenge [ASB] would become over assertive with his raised deep voice and assertive hand gestures. This exuded an impression of authority and at times, overconfidence, which are unusual characteristics for a child.
At one point, [ASB] raised his voice and appeared to argue with the interpreter. The interpreter then spoke to the assessors advising that they ask [ASB] to calm down and “please don’t shout’ as he was only asking him to repeat a response as he could not hear him clearly. This response was unusual for the assessors as the demeanour did not align with other 16-17 year old young people that the social workers work with.
[ASB] demonstrated a level of emotional maturity and resilience one would expect from an adult as there were no signs of anxiety or dysregulation throughout the assessment. He appeared self-assured and assertive when speaking to the assessors.
to the assessors within this assessment, it is our conclusion that [ASB] is between 23-25 years old.
The assessed date of birth provided by the Home Office aligns with [ASB]’s presentation and therefore, he is accessing the correct support for his needs.
Evidence and submissions
10. The fact-finding hearing was significantly delayed on the first day. This was because the applicant missed his stop on his train journey to Bradford.
11. I heard oral evidence from the applicant, his claimed cousin, (‘MAMJ’) and Ms Reid on behalf of the local authority.
12. It would overburden this decision to summarise the evidence and submissions extensively, but I have had regard to my comprehensive note of the witnesses’ oral evidence and the oral submissions. I will, of course, refer to any evidence and submissions, both oral and written, which are of significance in my fact-finding analysis below.
13. Notwithstanding the above counsel of restraint in over-summarising the proceedings for the purposes of this judgment, two matters are worth setting out here. Firstly, the applicant appeared to be cautious when taken through the formal steps of adopting his witness statement for the purposes of providing evidence-in-chief. It was only after several questions posed by his counsel, with the assistance of the tribunal-appointed interpreter, that the applicant accepted that the witness statement was his accurately translated account of the relevant events. Secondly, at the oral submissions stage of the hearing, Mr Johnson exercised his procedural right of reply to the applicant’s submissions, noting at the outset the convention that such a reply be limited to matters of law. At the conclusion of his reply, Mr Bazini took issue with the extent to which his opponent revisited submissions going to controversial facts. He asked to be permitted to reply to the reply. After it was agreed between the parties that I should only have regard to the matters of law touched upon by Mr Johnson’s reply, I could see nothing to be gained by further extending the sequence of oral submissions. I reserved my decision.
Analysis and Conclusions
The credibility and reliability of ASB and MAMJ as witnesses
14. In these proceedings, there were two live witnesses who claimed to have direct knowledge of the applicant’s age: the applicant himself and his claimed cousin, MAMJ. I have anonymised MAMJ not only because his surname, shared with the applicant, would tend to identify the applicant but also because MAMJ has been assessed to be a child born on 1 January 2009.
15. Dealing first with a number of challenges to the applicant’s credibility, it was suggested that his various accounts were tainted by various inconsistencies.
16. The first was that the applicant was said to have provided an internally discordant initial account about chronological background events which cast doubt on his true age. During the respondent’s initial age assessment, he provided a date of birth of 1 July 2008 and further indicated that he left Sudan in 2021 at the age of 14. These dates did not tally with him being 14 in 2021 as he would, in fact, have turned from 12 to 13 years of age in July 2021. This struck me an overly fine-margins analysis which did not materially undermine the applicant’s credibility. There seemed to me to be no obvious reason why the applicant would have unerringly registered his exact age at the point of his departure from Sudan, which, on any view, would have been a time of great stress leaving his family and all he had known until then behind for an uncertain and precarious journey. I was also troubled by the lack of certainty the applicant expressed about precisely when he left the country. The handwritten note of the questions and answers which underpinned the initial age assessment recorded the applicant as saying, “I think 2021”. This lack of certainty was echoed when he was asked about this chronology under cross-examination where he stated he left school in “almost 2021”. This tends to reveal the frailty of casting this assertion as an emphatic recollection of an event from the past which did not tally with the claimed date of birth. I do not hold this to be an inconsistency of substance.
17. A second inconsistency of greater substance flowed from the answers given by the applicant during his screening interview. At question 3.1, he was asked if he had any close family in the UK or any other European country in answer to which he named two paternal uncles who were living in the UK. He did not mention MAMJ, his cousin who lived in the UK and with whom he later claimed to have been in recent communication from Calais. He also neglected to mention an additional older cousin who was living in the UK. I was not persuaded by the explanation provided during his oral evidence that he had taken the question to refer to adult relatives. This would not explain why he omitted to refer to the older cousin. Moreover, the question was manifestly not limited in that way. I am driven to conclude that the applicant chose not to disclose MAMJ’s details for other reasons.
18. A third inconsistency suggested on the respondent’s behalf was that the applicant had described, in his oral evidence, establishing contact with MAMJ after asking around the Sudanese community for his phone number. This later appeared to shift such that he was, in fact, provided with the details of MAMJ’s Facebook profile name, not his phone number. This did not strike me as an inconsistency of substance and appeared to be more in keeping with loose and imprecise language about what would be needed to establish contact over Facebook.
19. A fourth point taken against the credibility of the applicant’s claimed age was drawn from the IS.91 Home Office registration form. Here, a date of birth of 1 July 2001 was recorded and in response to the question, “is the person claiming to be a minor but is believed to be an adult”, the answer was recorded as “No”. It was put to the applicant that this form must have been a reflection of him not claiming, at that time, to be a child. The applicant was adamant that he had said nothing of the kind. I am inclined to agree with the point made by Mr Bazini in his oral submissions, that it would be a wholly improbable coincidence if the applicant offered a date of birth of 1 July 2001 and it just so happened to be the precise date of birth the Home Office age assessors independently arrived at as their estimation of age. If the applicant offered this date of birth at any stage of his interactions with Home Office officials, it is surprising in the extreme that there is no clear record of him saying this and in what circumstances it was said. The natural conclusion to draw is that the date of birth recorded on the IS.91 form is a reflection of the age assessment which was conducted by Home Officials around this time and that the negative answer recorded against the question quoted above about claiming to be a minor was an error in the completion of the form.
20. I am not satisfied that the applicant’s evidence was in any way inconsistent about how he came to know of his age or date of birth. It was suggested that there was some tension in his claim to have first learned of his age around the time he first went to school. I could discern no such tension. Returning to the handwritten note of the interview which underpinned the initial age assessment, I could see nothing untoward in the answer to the question about how he knew his age: “father/mother told me + when I was in school they ask about age”. On the contrary to the respondent’s submissions, I was struck by the natural and instinctive response to similarly themed questions in cross-examination. The applicant described having a concept of the passage of time because years were marked by occasions such as the New Year, the birth of The Prophet and Independence Day. This had the ring of truth as being markers drawn from memory.
21. A further dimension of the evidence which tended to support the appellant’s factual claims about his age was the evidence of his social media usage. The applicant’s Facebook profile, volunteered to the respondent for examination at an early juncture and independently assessed and verified by his legal representative, was set up in December 2024 before he travelled from France to the UK. It recorded his date of birth as being 1 July 2008. While this was, of course, set up by the applicant himself, it adds some weight to his claim that he was asserting a consistent date of birth weeks before the question of his age became a central and important procedural question to be formally determined. If the applicant is lying about his age, he appears to have had the foresight to lay the groundwork for this false claim several weeks before he needed to. This appeared to me to be unlikely in the overall circumstances.
22. MAMJ attended the hearing to give oral evidence and be cross-examined. I found his evidence to be compelling. This was an individual about whom there has never been any suggestion that he is not who he says he is nor that he is a 17-year-old child. In fact, he has been independently assessed to be the age he claims to be and is treated as a child by the Local Authority in which he lives. The closest Mr Johnson came to directly challenging his truthfulness as a witness was after I prompted him to give MAMJ the opportunity to respond to any adverse credibility points which might be advanced later in oral submissions. When the invitation was taken up and it was suggested that he was not telling the truth about his familial relationship with the applicant, he forcefully denied the imputation and appeared to be bewildered as to why such an allegation would be made. These naturalistic and instinctive responses from a clearly unsophisticated child carried weight.
23. MAMJ provided convincing evidence about how he could be so confident about the applicant’s age. He described how both his own immediate family and ASB’s family had independently and separately made this clear to him. In particular, the way in which this information was said to have been expressed strongly resonated with a truthful account. He did not claim to have been told the applicant’s date of birth but was told that he was a few months older than him. This seemed to be just the kind of way in which family members would explain relative ages to a child, with reference to the difference in age between the two family members. I agree with Mr Johnson that there was some confused evidence from MAMJ about the family home in which he and the applicant spent time together in a village with shared family heritage. However, the thrust of his evidence broadly cohered with that provided by the applicant. They each consistently described how they spent holidays together in a village in which MAMJ’s grandmother had a house. They each independently described a space, known as a diwan, in which young males would rest and congregate. I could discern little in the way of material differences between their accounts. I was left with the strong sense that the fully tested oral evidence of these two important witnesses was mutually supportive. MAMJ was a strong and compelling witness whose evidence confers strong support for the proposition that the applicant is indeed his cousin and is the age he claims to be.
24. The applicant relied on a witness statement purporting to be from his paternal uncle, NMJ. He did not attend the hearing to give evidence without explanation. Accordingly, I am not minded to attach weight to his untested evidence.
25. I have taken into account that I do not have any Sudanese official document which might support the applicant’s claimed age. His case was that his national identification card was left behind in Sudan before he left the country. There was some confusion in the applicant’s evidence about whether he knew that the document had been lost when his family home was destroyed during fighting in the area, or whether he had inferred this to be the case. This element of the evidence did not weigh heavily in my assessment of credibility because it seemed to me that the evidence did not significantly alter in that it was always his case that the card was not available to him because it was presumed lost in the chaos which unfolded as his family fled their home for a refugee camp. The precise circumstances in which this document was not available to be deployed in the proceedings added little of substance.
The respondent’s age assessment
26. The key evidence in support of the applicant being an adult is to be found in the respondent’s initial age assessment.
27. It is fair to say that it is largely founded on the impressions formed by the assessors of the applicant’s physical features and his behaviour during the process. As summarised above, the authorities are clear about the dangers of relying so heavily on such impressionist conclusions unconnected to objective foundations.
28. The concerns I have about the overly subjective approach adopted in the age assessment process is exemplified by the following remark: “He did not present as a teenager would in a stressful situation, for example struggling to maintain eye contact or fidgeting”. Firstly, there is simply nothing to underpin the notion that this is how a teenager might be reasonably expected to behave in this situation. Even if that was the subjective experience of the assessors in their interactions with young people who had been assessed as children in the past, there is nothing to support the notion that those previous judgements were sound nor is there anything to indicate what proportion shared cultural characteristics like those of this applicant such that meaningful comparisons could be drawn. Even if some teenagers might be deferential under questioning by figures of authority, it cannot be a safe conclusion that all, or most, teenagers will behave in that way. This would be an overly simplistic stereotype of teenage behaviour shorn of any statistical or empirical baseline. While the age assessors here might have formed the impression that the applicant’s assertiveness and outward confidence might be a sign of maturity, others might reach an equally unsupported impressionistic conclusion that such behaviour is more aligned with an over-confident or, to use the vernacular, “cocky”, teenager who had not fully grasped the seriousness of the situation they were in.
29. For the avoidance of doubt, I reject Mr Bazini’s suggestion that there was anything concerning in Ms Reid being put forward as the respondent’s witness of fact. This was in accordance with the case management directions issued by Upper Tribunal Judge Canavan who expressly indicated that there was little to be gained by hearing oral evidence from the two social workers who conducted the initial age assessment. Of greater concern were her general observations about “trends” she was aware of among those claiming to be minors. She said this at paragraph 22 of her witness statement:
There is an emerging pattern in age disputed cases of applicant s providing statements from people who purport to be relatives, whether distant uncles or cousins or brothers. While it is possible that some of these statements may be accurate, we have to be alive to the possibility that this may reflect a co-ordinated strategy, including coaching by third parties such as traffickers and that this may be evidence of people trafficking for the purposes of modern slavery.
30. It was later stated, at paragraph 27, that in the absence of “validation” of MAMJ’s evidence, that his evidence fell to be treated with “circumspection”.
31. My concern was that the commentary about “trends” was not supported by any empirical data or statistics and yet appears to have informed the approach taken to MAMJ’s narrative evidence which, on its face, conferred support for the applicant’s narrative about his background and age. This was not suggestive of an open and enquiring mind. I was less impressed by Mr Bazini’s suggestion that the respondent ought to have made enquiries about MAMJ and even to have sought permission to approach this child witness to interview him. It appeared to me to be procedurally appropriate for the respondent to adopt a cautious position given that they were first made aware of MAMJ’s evidence after these proceedings were instigated.
Overall conclusions
32. When I step back and assess the overall evidential picture, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant is the age he claims to be and is a child. I reject the respondent’s position that he is, plainly and obviously, an adult in his early to mid-twenties. On the evidence I have considered, this is far removed from the reality. I found both the applicant and MAMJ to be broadly credible and reliable witnesses for the reasons I have given above. There were aspects of the applicant’s accounts which were not satisfactorily explained such as why he did not mention MAMJ in his screening interview when directly asked about family in the UK. But, on the whole, I find he has maintained a date of birth of 1 July 2008 consistently since before he even arrived in the UK and has been broadly consistent and supported his narrative account with rich detail under searching questioning. MAMJ’s fully tested oral evidence was compelling and left me in little doubt that he and the applicant were recalling a shared history as similarly aged children in Sudan.
33. In my judgement, on the balance of probabilities following an inquisitorial fact-finding process, that the applicant was born on 1 July 2008 which made him a child when he arrived in the UK. Accordingly, the claim for judicial review succeeds on its merits.
P Lodato
Upper Tribunal Judge Lodato
~~~~0~~~~
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
ASB
Applicant
and
Liverpool City Council
Respondent
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision
UPON the Tribunal handing down judgment on 2 March 2026
IT IS ORDERED THAT;
1. The Applicant’s date of birth is declared to be 1 July 2008, such that the Applicant is a child at the date of this order.
2. The question of costs shall be determined on written submissions as follows –
(1) The Respondent shall file and serve submissions as to the appropriate order as to costs by 4pm on 30 March 2025.
(2) If the Respondent does not file submissions in accordance with (1), above, the Respondent will be ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs of the claim on the standard basis and for these to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed, unless the Tribunal considers that such an order would be wrong or unfair in all the circumstances.
(3) Where submissions are filed and served by the Respondent, the Applicant may file and serve submissions in reply within 28 days of the service of those submissions.
(4) Where no submissions are filed by the Applicant in accordance with (3), above, the Tribunal will make the Order sought by the Respondent, unless the Tribunal considers that such an order would be wrong or unfair in all the circumstances.
(5) Where submissions are filed by the Applicant, the Respondent shall have 7 days in which to file and serve a reply.
(6) Any written submissions shall comply with the ACO Cost Guidance, dated 2016, in particular they shall not exceed two sides of A4 paper.
Signed: P Lodato
Upper Tribunal Judge Lodato
Dated: 2 March 2026
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): 2 March 2026
Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:
Case No: JR-2025-LON-001825
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Heard at: Phoenix House
20 Rushton Avenue
Bradford
BD3 7BH
2 March 2026
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
ASB
Applicant
- and -
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Bazini
(instructed by Luke and Bridger Law), for the applicant
Mr Johnson
(instructed by Liverpool City Council) for the respondent
Hearing date: 27-28 January 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge Lodato:
Introduction and Legal Framework
1. By order, sealed on 10 June 2025, of Judge Plimmer, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, the applicant was granted permission to challenge, by judicial review proceedings, the decision of the respondent to treat him as an adult. The proceedings were transferred to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal.
2. The matters to be resolved in these proceedings are factual. I must decide the applicant’s age and declare his date of birth. The legal principles to be applied to this fact-finding process were not controversial between the parties. The approach I must adopt is inquisitorial in nature and the key factual issues are to be resolved according to the balance of probabilities. Neither party bears the burden of establishing the standard of proof, but this is the threshold my settled conclusions must reach (see R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590, at [21] and [23]). Guidance as to how decision-makers should approach their task in such matters was provided at [21] of the judgment of Thornton J in R (AB) v Kent County Council [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin). Included among these broad principles was that any benefit of the doubt must go to the claimed unaccompanied asylum-seeking child and that both physical appearance and demeanour were notoriously unreliable indicators of age and that this should not form the exclusive basis for any such finding of fact (see also the guidance provided by Ockleton VP at [15] and [19]-[21] of R (AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 (IAC)). The gaps in reliable scientific methods and the dangers of reaching impressionistic and subjective conclusions about people from far-removed cultures, with unfamiliar experiences, was explained in the leading case of R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] 4 All E.R. 280; [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin), where Stanley Burnton J (as he then was) made the following observations:
[22] The determination of an applicant's age is rendered difficult by the absence of any reliable anthropometric test: for someone who is close to the age of 18, there is no reliable medical or other scientific test to determine whether he or she is over or under 18. The Health of Refugee Children—Guidelines for Paediatricians published in November 1999 by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health states (p 13 (para 5.6)):
'In practice, age determination is extremely difficult to do with certainty, and no single approach to this can be relied on. Moreover, for young people aged 15–18, it is even less possible to be certain about age. There may also be difficulties in determining whether a young person who might be as old as 23 could, in fact, be under the age of 18. Age determination is an inexact science and the margin of error can sometimes be a much as 5 years either side
…
Overall, it is not possible to actually predict the age of an individual from any anthropometric measure, and this should not be attempted. Any assessments that are made should also take into account relevant factors from the child's medical, family and social history.'
[23] Different people living in the same country, with the same culture and diet, mature physically and psychologically at different rates. It is difficult for a layman to determine the age of someone born in this country with any accuracy. A general practitioner is very unlikely to have the knowledge or experience to improve on the accuracy of an intelligent layman. To obtain any reliable medical opinion, one has to go to one of the few paediatricians who have experience in this area. Even they can be of limited help, as in the instant case and is referred to below.
[24] The difficulties are compounded when the young person in question is of an ethnicity, culture, education and background that are foreign, and unfamiliar, to the decision-maker.
[…]
[27] Of course, there may be cases where it is very obvious that a person is under or over 18. In such cases there is normally no need for prolonged inquiry; indeed, if the person is obviously a child, no inquiry at all is called for. The present is not such a case. The difficulty normally only arises in cases, such as the present, where the person concerned is approaching 18 or is only a few years over 18. But the possibility of obvious cases means that it is not possible to prescribe the level or manner of inquiry so as sensibly to cover all cases.
3. An evaluative judgment is required of the evidence in the round which will invariably involve an assessment of the applicant’s credibility.
4. I maintain the anonymity order which was previously made in these proceedings. The applicant claims to have been a child when the litigation began and that is the central issue I must resolve. Taking the applicant’s case at its highest for this purpose, while bearing in mind the fundamental principle of open justice, I am satisfied that the considerations which apply to the assessment of the best interests of children and the need to maintain the privacy of a child party to legal proceedings outweigh the right of the public to know of his identity.
Background Information
5. Below is a summary of the key background events:
• 2 February 2025 – The applicant arrived in the UK by small boat and claimed asylum. The Home Office assessed the applicant’s probable age to be 23 with a putative date of birth of 1 July 2001. The applicant claimed to be 16 at that time with a date of birth of 1 July 2008.
• 3 February 2025 – The applicant underwent a Home Office screening interview.
• 7 February 2025 – Liverpool City Council conducted an Initial Age Assessment. The outcome was that the applicant was assessed to be a “clear and obvious adult” aged 23–25, not a child.
• 29 April 2025 – The judicial review claim was issued in the Administrative Court together with an application for interim relief.
• 10 June 2025 – Judge Plimmer granted permission for the judicial review claim to proceed and refused interim relief; the matter was transferred to the Upper Tribunal (IAC) to determine the applicant’s age.
6. The applicant’s solicitors provided evidence of their analysis of their client’s social media accounts. In Mr Bridger’s witness statement of 7 July 2025, he noted two social media accounts hosted by Facebook and TikTok. The Facebook account was registered on 1 December 2024 with a recorded date of birth of 1 July 2008. The TikTok account was opened on 25 December 2024, but the applicant was said to no longer have access with his last post uploaded on 11 February 2025.
7. The applicant underwent two age assessment procedures. The first was conducted by the Home Office soon after his arrival in the UK. He was treated as an adult after assessment by two Home Office officials. The rationale for reaching this conclusion was:
All initial age decisions begin with initial impression made from visual presentation. An initial impression of age range is formed based on height, facial features including facial hair, skin line/folds, etc; voice tone, and general impression. I observed the applicant has a well-developed jaw line and cheek bones, he has a prominent and protruding adams apple and lines across the neck, he has facial hair on the upper lip and chin. He has old acne scarring on the face, His eyes are sunken into his head and has dark circles under the eyes. He has deep forehead wrinkles and smile lines. There are signs of weathering on the face showing a change in skin tone. He has broad shoulders going past the waist and large hands. The applicant has a confident demeanour and makes eye contact with both officers when being interviewed. He answered questioning in an assured manner. I therefore looked at the applicant to be satisfied with the assessment. In the absence of documentary evidence and based on their size, facial and body hair, behaviour and my experience I am fully satisfied that he is significantly over the age of 18.
Based on the initial age decision by IO B Murphy and IO C Ridley, I am in agreement that the applicant is significantly over the age of 18 – with a DOB of 01/07/2001 and an age assessed age of 23 years of age - and they will be registered on our system as such.
8. It was noted that the applicant could not produce any documents to verify his age. When it was put to the applicant that he was assessed to be an adult, his response was “I told you my age”. The overall conclusion was set out as follows:
There is no clear credible evidence to substantiate the applicant’s claimed age or date of birth. Their physical appearance and demeanour has been assessed as very strongly suggesting that they are significantly over 18 years of age and there is little or no supporting evidence for their claimed age IO B Murphy, IO C Ridley and CIO S Killip are in agreement that he is 23.
9. The respondent’s initial age assessment was conducted five days later on 7 February 2025. He was assessed to be an adult for the following reasons:
Physical Appearance
In considering [ASB]’s physical appearance in isolation, whilst it is recognised that physical appearance alone cannot be used to determine one’s age, it is important to analyse this to use in conjunction with other findings.
[ASB] appears to be 5ft 7 inches tall and is of a slim build. He has dark black afro hair that is long at the top and short on the sides.
[ASB] was observed to have facial hair around his chin area and upper lip. [ASB] was asked if he shaved, he said he did not, however a shaving shadow could be observed.
[ASB] had a visible Adams apple, deep forehead lines and prominent lines on his face and neck which can be attributed to adult maturity.
The assessors acknowledge that factors such as stress, trauma and time spent outside in the elements can impact on physical appearance. However, even when such factors are considered [ASB]’s physical appearance does not align with other 16-17 year-old Sudanese males known to the Local Authority.
[ASB]’s physical presentation suggests that he is an adult. This was put to him in the minded to session.
Demeanour Observations/Developmental considerations
[ASB] presented as older than his claimed age during the assessment due to his confidence and self-assured attitude which would be unusual for an adolescent. He did not present as a teenager would in a stressful situation, for example struggling to maintain eye contact or fidgeting.
[ASB] was observed during the assessment to be an assertive and confident male, and at times over assertive. During points of challenge [ASB] would become over assertive with his raised deep voice and assertive hand gestures. This exuded an impression of authority and at times, overconfidence, which are unusual characteristics for a child.
At one point, [ASB] raised his voice and appeared to argue with the interpreter. The interpreter then spoke to the assessors advising that they ask [ASB] to calm down and “please don’t shout’ as he was only asking him to repeat a response as he could not hear him clearly. This response was unusual for the assessors as the demeanour did not align with other 16-17 year old young people that the social workers work with.
[ASB] demonstrated a level of emotional maturity and resilience one would expect from an adult as there were no signs of anxiety or dysregulation throughout the assessment. He appeared self-assured and assertive when speaking to the assessors.
to the assessors within this assessment, it is our conclusion that [ASB] is between 23-25 years old.
The assessed date of birth provided by the Home Office aligns with [ASB]’s presentation and therefore, he is accessing the correct support for his needs.
Evidence and submissions
10. The fact-finding hearing was significantly delayed on the first day. This was because the applicant missed his stop on his train journey to Bradford.
11. I heard oral evidence from the applicant, his claimed cousin, (‘MAMJ’) and Ms Reid on behalf of the local authority.
12. It would overburden this decision to summarise the evidence and submissions extensively, but I have had regard to my comprehensive note of the witnesses’ oral evidence and the oral submissions. I will, of course, refer to any evidence and submissions, both oral and written, which are of significance in my fact-finding analysis below.
13. Notwithstanding the above counsel of restraint in over-summarising the proceedings for the purposes of this judgment, two matters are worth setting out here. Firstly, the applicant appeared to be cautious when taken through the formal steps of adopting his witness statement for the purposes of providing evidence-in-chief. It was only after several questions posed by his counsel, with the assistance of the tribunal-appointed interpreter, that the applicant accepted that the witness statement was his accurately translated account of the relevant events. Secondly, at the oral submissions stage of the hearing, Mr Johnson exercised his procedural right of reply to the applicant’s submissions, noting at the outset the convention that such a reply be limited to matters of law. At the conclusion of his reply, Mr Bazini took issue with the extent to which his opponent revisited submissions going to controversial facts. He asked to be permitted to reply to the reply. After it was agreed between the parties that I should only have regard to the matters of law touched upon by Mr Johnson’s reply, I could see nothing to be gained by further extending the sequence of oral submissions. I reserved my decision.
Analysis and Conclusions
The credibility and reliability of ASB and MAMJ as witnesses
14. In these proceedings, there were two live witnesses who claimed to have direct knowledge of the applicant’s age: the applicant himself and his claimed cousin, MAMJ. I have anonymised MAMJ not only because his surname, shared with the applicant, would tend to identify the applicant but also because MAMJ has been assessed to be a child born on 1 January 2009.
15. Dealing first with a number of challenges to the applicant’s credibility, it was suggested that his various accounts were tainted by various inconsistencies.
16. The first was that the applicant was said to have provided an internally discordant initial account about chronological background events which cast doubt on his true age. During the respondent’s initial age assessment, he provided a date of birth of 1 July 2008 and further indicated that he left Sudan in 2021 at the age of 14. These dates did not tally with him being 14 in 2021 as he would, in fact, have turned from 12 to 13 years of age in July 2021. This struck me an overly fine-margins analysis which did not materially undermine the applicant’s credibility. There seemed to me to be no obvious reason why the applicant would have unerringly registered his exact age at the point of his departure from Sudan, which, on any view, would have been a time of great stress leaving his family and all he had known until then behind for an uncertain and precarious journey. I was also troubled by the lack of certainty the applicant expressed about precisely when he left the country. The handwritten note of the questions and answers which underpinned the initial age assessment recorded the applicant as saying, “I think 2021”. This lack of certainty was echoed when he was asked about this chronology under cross-examination where he stated he left school in “almost 2021”. This tends to reveal the frailty of casting this assertion as an emphatic recollection of an event from the past which did not tally with the claimed date of birth. I do not hold this to be an inconsistency of substance.
17. A second inconsistency of greater substance flowed from the answers given by the applicant during his screening interview. At question 3.1, he was asked if he had any close family in the UK or any other European country in answer to which he named two paternal uncles who were living in the UK. He did not mention MAMJ, his cousin who lived in the UK and with whom he later claimed to have been in recent communication from Calais. He also neglected to mention an additional older cousin who was living in the UK. I was not persuaded by the explanation provided during his oral evidence that he had taken the question to refer to adult relatives. This would not explain why he omitted to refer to the older cousin. Moreover, the question was manifestly not limited in that way. I am driven to conclude that the applicant chose not to disclose MAMJ’s details for other reasons.
18. A third inconsistency suggested on the respondent’s behalf was that the applicant had described, in his oral evidence, establishing contact with MAMJ after asking around the Sudanese community for his phone number. This later appeared to shift such that he was, in fact, provided with the details of MAMJ’s Facebook profile name, not his phone number. This did not strike me as an inconsistency of substance and appeared to be more in keeping with loose and imprecise language about what would be needed to establish contact over Facebook.
19. A fourth point taken against the credibility of the applicant’s claimed age was drawn from the IS.91 Home Office registration form. Here, a date of birth of 1 July 2001 was recorded and in response to the question, “is the person claiming to be a minor but is believed to be an adult”, the answer was recorded as “No”. It was put to the applicant that this form must have been a reflection of him not claiming, at that time, to be a child. The applicant was adamant that he had said nothing of the kind. I am inclined to agree with the point made by Mr Bazini in his oral submissions, that it would be a wholly improbable coincidence if the applicant offered a date of birth of 1 July 2001 and it just so happened to be the precise date of birth the Home Office age assessors independently arrived at as their estimation of age. If the applicant offered this date of birth at any stage of his interactions with Home Office officials, it is surprising in the extreme that there is no clear record of him saying this and in what circumstances it was said. The natural conclusion to draw is that the date of birth recorded on the IS.91 form is a reflection of the age assessment which was conducted by Home Officials around this time and that the negative answer recorded against the question quoted above about claiming to be a minor was an error in the completion of the form.
20. I am not satisfied that the applicant’s evidence was in any way inconsistent about how he came to know of his age or date of birth. It was suggested that there was some tension in his claim to have first learned of his age around the time he first went to school. I could discern no such tension. Returning to the handwritten note of the interview which underpinned the initial age assessment, I could see nothing untoward in the answer to the question about how he knew his age: “father/mother told me + when I was in school they ask about age”. On the contrary to the respondent’s submissions, I was struck by the natural and instinctive response to similarly themed questions in cross-examination. The applicant described having a concept of the passage of time because years were marked by occasions such as the New Year, the birth of The Prophet and Independence Day. This had the ring of truth as being markers drawn from memory.
21. A further dimension of the evidence which tended to support the appellant’s factual claims about his age was the evidence of his social media usage. The applicant’s Facebook profile, volunteered to the respondent for examination at an early juncture and independently assessed and verified by his legal representative, was set up in December 2024 before he travelled from France to the UK. It recorded his date of birth as being 1 July 2008. While this was, of course, set up by the applicant himself, it adds some weight to his claim that he was asserting a consistent date of birth weeks before the question of his age became a central and important procedural question to be formally determined. If the applicant is lying about his age, he appears to have had the foresight to lay the groundwork for this false claim several weeks before he needed to. This appeared to me to be unlikely in the overall circumstances.
22. MAMJ attended the hearing to give oral evidence and be cross-examined. I found his evidence to be compelling. This was an individual about whom there has never been any suggestion that he is not who he says he is nor that he is a 17-year-old child. In fact, he has been independently assessed to be the age he claims to be and is treated as a child by the Local Authority in which he lives. The closest Mr Johnson came to directly challenging his truthfulness as a witness was after I prompted him to give MAMJ the opportunity to respond to any adverse credibility points which might be advanced later in oral submissions. When the invitation was taken up and it was suggested that he was not telling the truth about his familial relationship with the applicant, he forcefully denied the imputation and appeared to be bewildered as to why such an allegation would be made. These naturalistic and instinctive responses from a clearly unsophisticated child carried weight.
23. MAMJ provided convincing evidence about how he could be so confident about the applicant’s age. He described how both his own immediate family and ASB’s family had independently and separately made this clear to him. In particular, the way in which this information was said to have been expressed strongly resonated with a truthful account. He did not claim to have been told the applicant’s date of birth but was told that he was a few months older than him. This seemed to be just the kind of way in which family members would explain relative ages to a child, with reference to the difference in age between the two family members. I agree with Mr Johnson that there was some confused evidence from MAMJ about the family home in which he and the applicant spent time together in a village with shared family heritage. However, the thrust of his evidence broadly cohered with that provided by the applicant. They each consistently described how they spent holidays together in a village in which MAMJ’s grandmother had a house. They each independently described a space, known as a diwan, in which young males would rest and congregate. I could discern little in the way of material differences between their accounts. I was left with the strong sense that the fully tested oral evidence of these two important witnesses was mutually supportive. MAMJ was a strong and compelling witness whose evidence confers strong support for the proposition that the applicant is indeed his cousin and is the age he claims to be.
24. The applicant relied on a witness statement purporting to be from his paternal uncle, NMJ. He did not attend the hearing to give evidence without explanation. Accordingly, I am not minded to attach weight to his untested evidence.
25. I have taken into account that I do not have any Sudanese official document which might support the applicant’s claimed age. His case was that his national identification card was left behind in Sudan before he left the country. There was some confusion in the applicant’s evidence about whether he knew that the document had been lost when his family home was destroyed during fighting in the area, or whether he had inferred this to be the case. This element of the evidence did not weigh heavily in my assessment of credibility because it seemed to me that the evidence did not significantly alter in that it was always his case that the card was not available to him because it was presumed lost in the chaos which unfolded as his family fled their home for a refugee camp. The precise circumstances in which this document was not available to be deployed in the proceedings added little of substance.
The respondent’s age assessment
26. The key evidence in support of the applicant being an adult is to be found in the respondent’s initial age assessment.
27. It is fair to say that it is largely founded on the impressions formed by the assessors of the applicant’s physical features and his behaviour during the process. As summarised above, the authorities are clear about the dangers of relying so heavily on such impressionist conclusions unconnected to objective foundations.
28. The concerns I have about the overly subjective approach adopted in the age assessment process is exemplified by the following remark: “He did not present as a teenager would in a stressful situation, for example struggling to maintain eye contact or fidgeting”. Firstly, there is simply nothing to underpin the notion that this is how a teenager might be reasonably expected to behave in this situation. Even if that was the subjective experience of the assessors in their interactions with young people who had been assessed as children in the past, there is nothing to support the notion that those previous judgements were sound nor is there anything to indicate what proportion shared cultural characteristics like those of this applicant such that meaningful comparisons could be drawn. Even if some teenagers might be deferential under questioning by figures of authority, it cannot be a safe conclusion that all, or most, teenagers will behave in that way. This would be an overly simplistic stereotype of teenage behaviour shorn of any statistical or empirical baseline. While the age assessors here might have formed the impression that the applicant’s assertiveness and outward confidence might be a sign of maturity, others might reach an equally unsupported impressionistic conclusion that such behaviour is more aligned with an over-confident or, to use the vernacular, “cocky”, teenager who had not fully grasped the seriousness of the situation they were in.
29. For the avoidance of doubt, I reject Mr Bazini’s suggestion that there was anything concerning in Ms Reid being put forward as the respondent’s witness of fact. This was in accordance with the case management directions issued by Upper Tribunal Judge Canavan who expressly indicated that there was little to be gained by hearing oral evidence from the two social workers who conducted the initial age assessment. Of greater concern were her general observations about “trends” she was aware of among those claiming to be minors. She said this at paragraph 22 of her witness statement:
There is an emerging pattern in age disputed cases of applicant s providing statements from people who purport to be relatives, whether distant uncles or cousins or brothers. While it is possible that some of these statements may be accurate, we have to be alive to the possibility that this may reflect a co-ordinated strategy, including coaching by third parties such as traffickers and that this may be evidence of people trafficking for the purposes of modern slavery.
30. It was later stated, at paragraph 27, that in the absence of “validation” of MAMJ’s evidence, that his evidence fell to be treated with “circumspection”.
31. My concern was that the commentary about “trends” was not supported by any empirical data or statistics and yet appears to have informed the approach taken to MAMJ’s narrative evidence which, on its face, conferred support for the applicant’s narrative about his background and age. This was not suggestive of an open and enquiring mind. I was less impressed by Mr Bazini’s suggestion that the respondent ought to have made enquiries about MAMJ and even to have sought permission to approach this child witness to interview him. It appeared to me to be procedurally appropriate for the respondent to adopt a cautious position given that they were first made aware of MAMJ’s evidence after these proceedings were instigated.
Overall conclusions
32. When I step back and assess the overall evidential picture, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant is the age he claims to be and is a child. I reject the respondent’s position that he is, plainly and obviously, an adult in his early to mid-twenties. On the evidence I have considered, this is far removed from the reality. I found both the applicant and MAMJ to be broadly credible and reliable witnesses for the reasons I have given above. There were aspects of the applicant’s accounts which were not satisfactorily explained such as why he did not mention MAMJ in his screening interview when directly asked about family in the UK. But, on the whole, I find he has maintained a date of birth of 1 July 2008 consistently since before he even arrived in the UK and has been broadly consistent and supported his narrative account with rich detail under searching questioning. MAMJ’s fully tested oral evidence was compelling and left me in little doubt that he and the applicant were recalling a shared history as similarly aged children in Sudan.
33. In my judgement, on the balance of probabilities following an inquisitorial fact-finding process, that the applicant was born on 1 July 2008 which made him a child when he arrived in the UK. Accordingly, the claim for judicial review succeeds on its merits.
P Lodato
Upper Tribunal Judge Lodato
~~~~0~~~~