JR-2025-LON-003184
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
JR-2025-LON-003184
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
“HO”
(Anonymity Direction Made)
Applicant
And
LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Khan
HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Mr Ollie Persey of counsel, instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP, for the Applicant and Ms Sian Davies of counsel, instructed by the Respondent at a hearing held on 9 & 10 June 2025, and handed down on 16 September 2025
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
The Applicant’s date of birth is 01 January 2000, such that he was an adult when he arrived in the UK on or around 15 February 2023, and aged 25 at the date of this order.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s claim for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons in the attached judgment.
(2) The Applicant shall pay the respondent’s reasonable costs of the claim incurred with the sum payable to be determined in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013, but subject to costs protection under s.26 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
(3) There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly-funded costs in accordance with the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013 and CPR 47.18.
Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal
(4) No application has been made for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In any event, permission to appeal is refused, as there is no arguable error of law in my decision.
Signed: K.A.Khan
Upper Tribunal Judge Khan
Dated: 16 September 2025
The date on which this order was sent is given below
For completion by the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Sent / Handed to the applicant, respondent and any interested party / the applicant's, respondent’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date): 17/09/2025
Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:
Notification of appeal rights
A decision by the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review is a decision that disposes of proceedings.
A party may appeal against such a decision to the Court of Appeal on a point of law only. Any party who wishes to appeal should apply to the Upper Tribunal for permission, at the hearing at which the decision is given. If no application is made, the Tribunal must nonetheless consider at the hearing whether to give or refuse permission to appeal (rule 44(4B) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008).
If the Tribunal refuses permission, either in response to an application or by virtue of rule 44(4B), then the party wishing to appeal can apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. This must be done by filing an appellant’s notice with the Civil Appeals Office of the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the date the Tribunal’s decision on permission to appeal was sent (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52D 3.3).
Case No: JR-2024-LON-003184
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
HO
(Anonymity Direction Made)
Applicant
- and –
LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Ollie Persey
(instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP), for the applicant
Ms Sian Davies
(instructed by the London Borough of Southwark) for the respondent
Hearing date: 9 & 10 June 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge Khan:
1. The applicant has been granted permission for a judicial review of the respondent’s age assessment decision communicated to the applicant on or about 13 May 2024.
2. That decision is the outcome of a full age assessment by which the respondent assessed the applicant to be in the age range of 21 to 24 years old (the ‘respondent’s report’). The respondent adopted the date of birth of 01 January 2000 in line with social media details attributed to the applicant, making him 24 years old at the time of the age assessment.
3. Another full age assessment was undertaken by Independent Social Workers (the ‘ISW report’) on 17 and 19 March 2025. This assessed the applicant to be in the age range of 18 and 20 years old at the date of that age assessment.
4. The issue for resolution in these proceedings is the applicant’s age, which is in dispute between the parties. The applicant, a national of Sudan, claims that he was born on 19 February 2007 and that he was a 15-year-old child when he arrived in the UK on 15 February 2023 and was thus aged 17 years and two months plus at the time of the respondent’s age assessment.
5. The factual background of this case is set out in the marked ‘Draft Agreed Statement of Facts’ which is too lengthy to be reproduced here. I have treated this document as ‘Agreed’ as none of the facts stated were disputed during the hearing. Paragraphs (i)-(vi) of that document sets out the applicant’s personal, immigration and age assessment history as follows:
(i) The applicant claims to have been born on 19 February 2007 in Nyala Salam refugee camp in Darfur, Sudan. He claims to have arrived in the UK on 15 February 2023 in the back of a lorry.
(ii) The Home Office conducted an ‘Unaccompanied Child Welfare Interview’ with the applicant on 20 March 2023. The applicant was granted leave to remain on 15 July 2024.
(iii) The respondent undertook an age assessment of the applicant on 14, 19 & 29 September 2023 and 02 April 2024.
(iv) An appropriate adult and interpreter were present at each session.
(v) The age assessment document refers to information from three professionals who had worked with the applicant:
(a) Busola Giwa, the applicant’s Independent Reviewing Officer (‘IRO’)
(b) ‘Prince’, the applicant’s placement key worker
(c) Norah Mibuuro, the applicant’s social worker (employed by the respondent).
(vi) The conclusions of the age assessment was that the assessors believed the applicant to be over the age of 18, and more likely to be in the age bracket 21-24. The age of 24 was selected in line with the applicant’s social media details.
Procedural matters
6. A claim for judicial review was lodged in the Administrative Court on 08 August 2024. A subsequent claim for interim relief was lodged on 09 August 2024 because the applicant’s asylum accommodation was to be discontinued from 15 August 2024 due to his asylum support ending.
7. A hearing took place on 11 September 2024. Judge Michael Ford KC granted permission for judicial review on the primary ground that the assessment of age was wrong as a matter of fact, allowing the case to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal for fact-finding. The judge refused permission on the second and third grounds (procedural impropriety and/or insufficiency of reasons in the course of the respondent’s age assessment) finding them not arguable, thereby leaving the sole issue as relating to the question of age. The Judge also declined to grant further interim relief, citing the strength of social media evidence against the applicant.
8. Following an Order made on 27 November 2024 and a Case Management Hearing held on 12 March 2024, the Upper Tribunal issued a series of directions which included those dealing with social media evidence. The substantive fact-finding hearing was listed for 09-11 June 2025. The applicant and the respondent were granted permission to rely upon the witness statements that had been filed and served. It was further directed that all witness statements would stand as evidence-in-chief and there would be no cross-examination of the assessing social workers at the hearing.
9. Subsequently, the applicant applied for permission to file and rely on the ISW report which was granted on 14 May 2025.
10. On 06 June 2025, the applicant applied to admit a handwritten document and a translation thereof and to rely on the same in the proceedings. The document provided additional information as to the applicant’s relationship with a male named ‘Ayman’ and photographs on his social media account. Permission to admit the additional evidence was granted on 9 June 2025.
The Applicant’s case
11. In his first witness statement dated 09 August 2024, at paragraphs 4 to 6, the applicant states his personal circumstances and explains how he knows his age:
4. “I was born on 19 February 2007 in Nyala Salam refugee camp in Darfur. I lived in the camp with my mother, father, three older siblings Fawzy, Fatima, and Amira and three younger siblings…… My father passed away in the camp in May 2020 after an illness. …. When I left the camp in March 2021 all my siblings remained there.
5. I used to enjoy playing football and marbles with my friends in the camp. From 2013 until 2017, I attended school run by a charity where I learnt Arabic and Quran. When I was 10 years old (in 2017) I left school, as did my siblings because my father wanted us to focus on religion and learning the Quran which we did at the mosque…..
6. I know that my date of birth is 19 February 2007 because when I was 10 years old, before I left school, school organised vaccinations. They asked for my birth certificate and I remember my mother showing me it. She did not give it to me but just showed it to me. The age assessment states that I told the assessors that this birth certificate had a photograph on however this is not correct, the interpreter must have misunderstood me.”
12. At paragraphs 7 to 12 of his first witness statement, the applicant sets out how he came to leave Sudan and arrive in the UK. In summary, he states that on or around 05 March 2021 while he was playing football in the camp there was an attack by the Janjaweed. He ran home and talked to his friend Ahmed and together they agreed to leave the camp. He did not tell his mother or anyone else in his family as he knew his mother would not have agreed for him to go.
13. On or around 06 March 2021, he and Ahmed left the Nyala Salam Camp and travelled to Nyala City by tractor. The trip was funded by Ahmed. Once in Nyala City the applicant met someone, he considered a cousin who gave him some money, 20,000 Sudanese pounds to help him. They travelled to Al-Fashir and onto Kufra in Libya where they stayed for about five days before travelling to Tripoli. Once in Tripoli they stayed in a shared house with some other Sudanese refugees for about six months.
14. In September 2021, the applicant stated that Ahmed received some money from his brother in Europe, so they decided to cross the sea. However, they were arrested and taken to Ain-Zara jail where they stayed for three months. They were released in December 2021 with the help of the Sudanese Embassy and returned to the same shared house.
15. In May 2022, the applicant stated that Ahmed received some money and travelled to Europe. The applicant remained in Libya and in October 2022 left the shared house to work for a smuggler which he did until December 2022. On or around 27 December 2022, the applicant left Tripoli and travelled by boat to Italy. On the way the Italian authorities intervened as the boat had a hole in it, and he was taken to Lampedusa. After five days, he left for Milan with other refugees arriving around 03 January 2023 and then travelled to Ventimiglia. From there, he then travelled via Nice and Paris to Calais.
16. He stayed in Calais between 18-21 days and then climbed in the back of a goods lorry and arrived in the UK on 15 February 2023 getting off in Luton. In Luton, he was given some money by Sudanese people for the train and advised by them to go to London Bridge and head to a police station which he did. He was treated as a child by the police and initially placed in foster care, but they did not treat him well, so he was moved to semi-independent accommodation. He considered himself to be 15 years old at the time.
17. Regarding his relationship with Ayman and his social media, the applicant stated at paragraphs 16 &17 of his first witness statement that he met Ayman in Sudan as he was living at the Nyala Salam Camp. He them bumped into him in Woolwich Arsenal when he was living in London. Ayman was his brother’s friend. He had created the Instagram account which they both shared and posted on. The applicant said that he had asked Ayman to speak to the respondent on his behalf, but he was scared of getting into trouble and then disappeared and stopped contacting him.
18. The applicant said that he did not know the Instagram account had stated 01 January 2000 as a date of birth on registration. He thought that Ayman had selected this date thinking it was unique, but it was actually random. The applicant did not have any internet connection or social media until he arrived in Libya. At that time, he did not have a smartphone, only an old Nokia phone. Later, he got a smartphone which allowed him access to social media, and he set up a Facebook account for himself in Libya.
19. The applicant made a second witness statement dated 28 August 2024. In this witness statement at paragraphs 4 to 10, he addressed his social media presence and his relationship with Ayman. In summary, the applicant stated that Ayman was his brother’s friend (Fawzy), and he first met him in the Nyala Salam Camp. After arriving in the UK, he bumped into Ayman at a mosque in Woolwich. He did not meet him in Libya.
20. The applicant said he could not recall exactly when Ayman set up the Instagram accounts with Arabic names. There were two accounts. The first account was set up by Ayman using his own mobile phone. Ayman had control of it but gave it to the applicant. The applicant was unsure why Ayman had done this as he had to use Ayman’s mobile phone to check Instagram reels and videos.
21. Ayman had also set up the second account. This was done in the applicant’s name using the applicant’s mobile phone so that he had control of it.
22. The applicant stated that Ayman did not set up his Facebook account. This was done by one of Ayman’s relatives when he was in Libya. Likewise, it was Ayman who had set up the applicant’s Tik Tok account.
23. At paragraph 8 of the second witness statement, the applicant identified the individuals in photographs 2-6 that were mentioned in the respondent’s age assessment at page 27. In respect of the photographs, the applicant stated that photograph 2 was ‘Ayman’ observing that ‘We really look like each other’. Photographs 3 & 4 were the applicant. Photograph 5 was ‘Ayman’s brother and grandmother and Photograph 6 was ‘Ayman and his siblings’.
24. At paragraph 10 of his second witness statement, the applicant stated that he had tried many times to contact Ayman, but it appeared that he had changed his number.
25. The applicant also relies upon the outcome of a full age assessment carried out by Independent Social Workers on 17 & 19 March 2025 and dated 01 April 2025. It is not disputed that the ISW report which was conducted by two independent social workers sets out the findings of a Merton compliant age assessment.
26. The ISW report criticises the respondent’s report. At paragraph 10.3. it notes ‘The age allocated to him seems to be primarily based upon a date of birth recorded within one of his social media accounts and is in excess of any of the estimates provided by professionals who had met him at this time.”
27. By contrast, at paragraph 10.4. of the ISW report, it states ‘In our review of the evidence completed within this assessment and that provided as part of the legal bundle we have found an overwhelmingly large number of professionals who are in support of [the applicant’s] claimed age. These professionals are all suitably qualified and have known [the applicant] for a prolonged period of time and therefore we find their evidence should be afforded a higher level of weighting. We have found [the applicant] has continued to be consistent in the information that he has provided, has provided a high level of information and detail and his narrative has been consistent with the research that we have completed.”
28. In relation to social media, the ISW Report at paragraph 8.16. (evidence table) acknowledged that the applicant’s explanation of social media use was not entirely convincing and therefore placed medium weighting on it. The ISW report stated “Whilst some of [the Applicant’s] social media provides an age which is supportive of his claimed age, one of the Instagram accounts provides a date of birth which makes him 25 years of age at the time of writing. [The applicant] has provided statements concerning why this is present, although this does not entirely seem to be a convincing narrative.”
29. In respect of ‘Ayman’ the ISW report at paragraph 8.20. states ‘The narrative suggests that [the applicant] has been quite evasive concerning Ayman, however, when the essence of what [the applicant] has said is considered, he has shared how he and Ayman know each other, how they reunified and tried to call Ayman during the interview process. As far as a I am aware no details are known about Ayman, and whist it may have been in [the applicant’s] benefit for Ayman to meet or speak to the assessing social workers, this may not have been in Ayman’s benefit - we do not know what Ayman’s status is within the UK and what is his experiences of professionals. Therefore, he may have chosen not to be of help to [the applicant].”
30. Finally, at paragraph 8.21, the ISW report concluded ‘We have considered how much weighting should be afforded to any social media evidence and we do not believe that a high level of weighting can be afforded to this when the other information is considered. Research highlights the unreliability of content posted by users on social media including that 22% of eight- to seventeen-year-olds claim to be 18 on social media (BBC:2024)”.
31. The applicant gave live evidence. Ms Angela Pryle also gave evidence on the applicant’s behalf. I have taken into account the aforementioned evidence as well as all the other material relied upon by the applicant.
The Respondent’s case
32. The respondent relies upon the outcome of a full Merton compliant age assessment carried out on 14, 19 and 29 September 2023 and 02 April 2024 which was communicated to the applicant on or about 13 May 2024.
33. The respondent’s age assessment took into account the observations and opinions of three professionals who had worked with the applicant, Ms Busola Giwa, the applicant’s Independent Reviewing Officer (‘IRO’), Prince, the applicant’s placement key worker, and Ms Norah Miburro, the applicant’s social worker.
34. The conclusion of the age assessment was that the assessors believed the applicant to be over the age of 18, and more likely to be in the age bracket 21-24. The age of 24 was selected in line with the applicant’s Instagram profile which has a registered date of birth of 01 January 2000.
35. The respondent’s report observes that there is considerable evidence in the opinion of social care professionals that the applicant looks and behaves like an adult, both in ‘formal’ settings and in his placement when he was accommodated by the respondent. Additionally, the respondent’s position is that there are significant issues with the credibility of the applicant which relate to his social media presence and his account that photos that look like him are in fact of Ayman.
36. No witnesses were called on the respondent’s behalf. I have also taken into consideration all the other material relied upon by the respondent.
The Legal Framework
37. In terms of the law, the parties are in agreement. As a result, I do not set it out in full, but I do recall a number of key principles. First, I have to decide the applicant’s age as a question of fact, specifically in terms of his date of birth. I should not choose between the alternatives put forward by the parties but must decide the age for myself: N v Croydon LBC [2011] EWHC 862.
38. The nature of the Tribunal’s inquiry under the Children Act 1989 is inquisitorial: R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWA Civ 1590 [§ 21]. There is no burden of proof, but I must decide matters on the balance of probabilities. There is no margin of discretion to the respondent’s own view, rather that assessment is evidence to be considered with all other evidence adduced.
39. Where the applicant does not produce any reliable corroborative documentary evidence of his date of birth or age, my starting point is the applicant’s own credibility and how the applicant knew his date of birth: See R (AE) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 547.
40. In R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689, it was stated by Stanley Burnton J at [20] “In such a case as the present, the applicant does not produce any reliable documentary evidence of his date of birth or age. In such circumstances, the determination of the age of the applicant will depend on the history he gives on his physical appearance and on his behaviour.”
41. He stated at [27] “Given the impossibility of any decision-maker being able to make an objectively verifiable determination of the age of an applicant who may be in the age range of, say 16-20, it is necessary to take a history from him or her to determine whether it is true. A history that is accepted as true and is consistent with an age below 18 will enable the decision-maker in such a case to decide that the applicant is a child. Conversely, however, an untrue history, while relevant, is not necessarily indicative of a lie as to the age of the applicant. Lies may be told for reasons unconnected with the applicant’s case as to his age, for example, to avoid his return to his country of origin. Furthermore, physical appearance and behaviour cannot be isolated from the question of the veracity of the applicant; appearance, behaviour and the credibility of his account are all matters that reflect on each other.”
42. He further stated at [37] “It is apparent from the foregoing that, except in clear cases, the decision-maker cannot determine age solely on the basis of the appearance of the applicant. In general, the decision-maker must seek to elicit the general background of the applicant, including his family circumstances and history, his educational background, and his activities during the previous few years. Ethnic and cultural information may also be important. If there is a reason to doubt the applicant’s statement as to his age, the decision-maker will have to make an assessment of his credibility, and he will have to ask questions designed to test his credibility.”
The hearing
43. I did not hear oral evidence from the age assessors. It was agreed that they would not provide oral evidence, in pre-hearing directions. On 09 June 2025, the applicant gave evidence with the assistance of a Sudanese-Arabic speaking interpreter. Ms Angela Pyle also gave evidence on the applicant’s behalf on the second day of the hearing. Thereafter, both counsel provided detailed submissions, relying on their respective skeleton arguments. In addition, Ms Davies produced a speaking note to support her closing submissions.
Witness evidence of those attending the hearing
The applicant’s live evidence
44. When giving evidence before me the applicant had the assistance of an interpreter in Sudanese-Arabic. I checked to ensure they could understand each other, and was advised there were no difficulties in interpretation.
45. The applicant has provided two witness statements which he adopted. The first is dated 09 August 2024 and covers his background and journey from Sudan to the UK and his comments on the respondent’s assessment. His second witness statement is dated 28 August 2024 and covers social media, his relationship with Ayman, travel to Scotland and comments on the witness statement of Faith Banton.
46. Cross-examination of the applicant took up the majority of the first day of the fact-finding hearing. During that time, the applicant was frequently upset, and breaks were taken for him to compose himself. He was also observed to become clearly frustrated at the questions.
47. The applicant was questioned on several topics: (i) interpretation (ii) birth certificate (iii) his journey from Sudan (iv) foster care, and (v) social media and relationships.
Interpretation
48. The applicant had stated in his first witness statement that he had concerns about the absence of Sudanese-Arabic interpreters being used during the age assessments interview held by the respondent on 14, 19 & 29 September 2023 and 02 April 2024. He said in the course of the first three interviews, he did not fully understand the interpreter because they did not speak Sudanese Arabic dialect. He raised the matter only after the three interviews and had a different interpreter for the fourth and final interview held on 02 April 2024.
49. During questioning the applicant was taken to the respondent’s document (at page 149 of bundle) titled ‘Pro Forma for Age Assessment – compliant with the Merton Judgement’. He confirmed that it was his signature in a box on the form dated 14/9/2023 which declared ‘I confirm I understand the purpose of the assessment, that I am feeling well and that I understand the interpreter’.
50. Ms Davies also referred to two other boxes under his signature on the document. One was signed by the attending Interpreter, Nawal Al-Asadi. She had signed a declaration that stated, ‘The applicant has confirmed understanding, that they are feeling well and the reasons for the assessment have been explained to them by the Social Work Assessors, and through my translation.’
51. The third and final box on the document was signed by the ‘Appropriate Adult’ and dated 14 September 2023. The declaration stated, ‘I confirm the person being assessed confirmed they understand the interpreter, the purpose of the assessment has been explained, the person has signed the Pro Forma, and the person has confirmed they are fit and well to undertake the assessment.’
52. In response to the question whether he had understood the declaration he signed on 14 September 2023 and had made no complaint about not understanding the interpreter, the applicant stated that he was confused and did not understand the interpreter correctly. He stated that he had not complained at any of the interviews because he did not know he could do so.
53. The applicant said it was clear to those attending the meetings that he did not understand the interpreters. He said they (mentioning Nawal and Jabir) made a lot of mistakes as they didn’t understand the Sudanese dialect. For example, the interpreter stated that his family all lived together in one tent which was wrong.
54. The applicant was asked about whether the appropriate adult raised any concerns. He said the appropriate adult said nothing and only asked about breaks.
55. The applicant was asked if he remembered attending a meeting on 29 September 2023 with his social worker, Ms Norah Mibuuro. This followed the age assessment interview on the same date. At that meeting ‘Nawal’ had interpreted and Ms Mibuuro recorded that the applicant had stated that the age assessment interview had gone well. She also recorded that the applicant had raised no concerns or complaints.
56. The applicant replied that he did not remember the meeting with Ms Miburro, nor any interviews where ‘Nawal’ had interpreted. He only remembered ‘Jabir’ but he accepted that other interpreters were also used in the interviews. It was put to him that if there was an issue with the interpretation at the meeting he would have remembered. He replied there were problems, but he could not recall the dates.
Birth Certificate
57. The applicant was taken to the age assessment notes (page 333-334 of the bundle) dated 14 September 2023. He was referred to the answer he gave to the age assessors about when he had seen a picture on his birth certificate. The exchange is reproduced as follows:
How do you know your date of birth?
My mum told me about my dob, I have a bc but is in Sudan and I cannot contact my mum to ask her to provide that.
Have you seen it?
Yes
Can you describe it to me?
Normal A4 paper, not too big not too small I don’t know how to describe it?
Did it have your picture on it?
Yes
How old were you when you got this bc?
Since I was born, but my mum showed it to me when I was nearly 10 years old
You said your picture is on the bc?
Yes
How old were you on the picture?
I am not sure
More or less?
I don’t remember
Were you a baby, a small child?
Don’t remember, sorry
Why did your mum showed your bc?
Because I left school when I was 10 yo and that’s why my mum showed.
Was there any specific reason?
Just happened by accident, she was going through paper
58. It was put to the applicant that he had been asked twice about the picture on his birth certificate and did he agree that the questions and answers matched up? The applicant replied that there was no picture of him on his birth certificate. The picture he had referred to was on his refugee camp card. It was put to him that there was no reference or question recorded in the notes about a refugee camp card.
59. The applicant stated that he did mention the refugee camp card. He claimed he had been bombarded with questions and was confused. He was asked if he had requested the age assessors to slow down their questions to which he replied that he did not know that he could do so. He was also asked if the appropriate adult had asked the age assessors to slow down. He replied that the appropriate adult would only ask him if he wanted a break when he saw him stressed. He confirmed that the age assessors asked him about his birth certificate and refugee camp card.
Departure from Sudan
60. The applicant was taken to the document (at page 464 of the bundle) completed by his social worker, Ms Mibuuro. It was pointed out that this was his account and was written in the first person. Under the heading ‘Social History’ he was asked if he remembered telling his social worker that on his first attempt to leave Libya he was put in Ain-Zara prison and ‘broke the prison and escaped.’
61. The applicant replied that there was no escape from prison. He did not say that to Norah. He did tell Norah about being in prison and that the Sudanese Embassy people came and arranged his release. The alternative would have been to pay money to leave. He accepted that he did have a conversation with Norah about how he came to the UK. She was like a mother to him, and they got on well. During their conversation Jabir was the interpreter.
62. It was put to the applicant that he had given a clear timeline of places and dates relating to his journey to the UK but provided no details about important events in his life before he left for the UK. When asked by the age assessors how long after the [Janjaweed] attack, he had left the country, he replied ‘I can’t tell you because maybe after you are ging to tell me I said so and so and I am not sure.’
63. The applicant confirmed that he was worried about sharing information as sometimes he did not know the dates. He further confirmed that he left Sudan with ‘Ahmed’ and that it was a relative (cousin) who had given him money when he left Sudan. He was no longer in contact with Ahmed.
64. He stated that when he arrived in Lampedusa that adults were sent to the mainland on the same day and children to Milan five days later. He confirmed he was treated as a minor.
Foster Care
65. The applicant was again taken to the document completed by Ms Mibuuro (at page 465 of the case bundle). The content mentioned that the applicant was not happy in the foster home and that his foster carers had told Ms Mibuuro that he found it difficult to follow the rules and boundaries, and that he smoked regularly in his bedroom. The content also mentioned that both the applicant and the foster carers wanted the placement to end.
66. The applicant responded to the question that the placement had ended because he had broken the house rules by stating ‘I know you would be saying that – I didn’t break no house rules. He accepted that he was smoking but denied it was in the house.
67. The applicant was asked if it was fair to say that he found it easier to live in a place with fewer rules. He replied that his social worker knew he was not treated properly by the foster carers and had been subject to discrimination. He had told her that he wanted to move. He did not know what the foster carers wanted but they had made the situation bigger.
68. When asked if he found it easier to live in place with fewer rules, he replied that in the beginning he did not know how to use the washing machine or to cook. It was put to him that he was able to manage the money. He replied that it was not enough.
69. Regarding travel, he said the staff had to accompany him to football. However, he was able to travel to the mosque alone because it was very close, about 7 minutes away. It was put to him that he was able to travel to Scotland on his own without any difficulty. He replied that a friend had bought the ticket for him and had explained the journey.
Social media and relationships
70. The applicant confirmed that he used Snapchat, WhatsApp and Tiktok on a daily basis but did not post photographs. He also followed the accounts of others who played football, but no one followed him. He confirmed that he followed ‘Daniel’ (Alfred) and was in contact with him on social media.
71. In relation to ‘Ahmed’ he was not in contact with him on social media. His last contact with him was when he (the applicant) was in Libya.
72. In relation to ‘Ayman’ the applicant said he was not in contact with him. He explained that when they last met at London Bridge, he told him about his situation, but Ayman was drunk and was not interested in helping him.
73. The applicant said at that time Ayman had a smartphone and he was able to access social media. The applicant said that Ayman gave him his account and when they used to play football together in Woolwich, Ayman would use his account on the applicant’s smartphone. He further stated that during the assessment meetings he gave the assessors Ayman’s mobile number and also tried to call him in their presence but there was no response.
74. The applicant was asked about when he started to use various social media. He stated that he started to use Instagram and Snapchat in the UK and TikTok and Facebook while in Libya. He was not using any social media, nor any type of phone in 2020.
75. The applicant was taken to picture 2 (at page 468 of the bundle). It was put to the applicant that he told the age assessors (second paragraph at page 470) that the picture (posted on 15 April 2020) was actually posted by Ayman and not him. He also said that the picture was of Ayman and that they both looked similar.
76. The applicant was asked if he was now saying that the picture was of him and not of Ayman. He replied that the Instagram account had a lot of pictures of Ayman but that he had deleted them all leaving only his picture.
77. The applicant was asked if the birth date of 01 January 2000 stated on the Instagram account was his date of birth. He responded, ‘How can I be born on this date?’
78. The applicant denied that he had an Instagram account on that date or that he had told the age assessors that he and Ayman looked similar. He did not respond to the assertion that having told the age assessors that he and Ayman looked similar that he went on to say, ‘We are from the same tribe.’ He said that picture 2 had been taken by his brother and passed to Ayman who posted it on his (Ayman’s) account.
79. The applicant was asked if he remembered telling the age assessors that picture 6 (on page 471 of the bundle) was a photograph of Ayman and his younger brothers. The applicant said he did not remember saying that. The picture was of him, not Ayman. He was asked why was the picture on his TikTok account. The applicant replied that Ayman had taken the picture from Instagram and sent it to him on Facebook and he then posted it on his TikTok account in August 2021.
80. The applicant confirmed that five photographs posted on the following dates were all of him:
20 September 2022 (page 596 of the bundle)
09 January 2022 (page 597 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 599 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 602 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 604 of the bundle)
81. It was put to the applicant that all the photos had been posted on his Instagram account before he said he had an Instagram account. The applicant replied that the account belonged to Ayman and the photographs were posted by him.
82. The applicant confirmed that he had a device to take pictures in 2021 when he was in Libya and had sent the pictures to Ayman who was in the UK. He met Ayman when he arrived in the UK in 2023 but sent him pictures in 2022 when he was still outside the UK. Ayman was his elder brother’s friend, and he knew him from Sudan. Ayman was like an older brother to him.
83. It was put to the applicant that he had told the age assessors that Ayman had been in the UK for about four years, which meant that at the time of his age assessment in 2023, Ayman would have been in the UK since around 2019. The applicant said he did not know but Ayman was not in Libya when he was there. However, he knew that Ayman was in the UK when he arrived in early 2023. He met him by coincidence at a mosque in Woolwich.
84. It was put to the applicant that it was surprising that as he regarded him as an elder brother and he knew that he was in the UK that he did not arrange to meet with Ayman. The applicant replied, ‘What do you mean?’
85. It was further put to the applicant that as he and Ayman both had a social media presence it was surprising there was no picture of the two of them together. The applicant replied that when he arrived, he did not have any clothes and was only given £30 by his social worker which was not enough.
86. The applicant said in addition to meeting at the mosque he and Ayman used to play football in Woolwich. Although he used to take his phone with him to football, he did not think of taking a photograph of them together as he was just happy.
87. The applicant said that he could not remember on what date he lost contact with Ayman. He agreed that on 29 September 2023 he had told the age assessors that he would get a photograph with Ayman and send it to them. It was sometime after this date that he lost contact with Ayman.
88. The applicant was referred to his undated handwritten note translated from Arabic to English and admitted into evidence on 09 June 2025. He confirmed that the note was written for his solicitor and should have read ‘The matter that confused me in the age assessment sessions…. ‘. The reference to ‘you’ in the first line was incorrect.
89. The applicant confirmed that pictures 2 & 3 (on pages 468/469 of the bundle) were of him and that picture 5 (on page 471) was his elder brother with a neighbour’s grandmother. Picture 6 (on page 471) was also of him with his cousins Musa and Khalid.
90. The applicant accepted that it would have been helpful for Ayman to have given evidence but said he had become an alcoholic.
91. The applicant confirmed when he made his two witness statements that he told the truth. He was taken to paragraph 8 of his second witness statement. There he had stated that picture 2 was ‘Ayman’ and that they looked like each other. He was next taken to pictures 5 & 6. There he had stated, respectively, that it was Ayman’s brother and grandmother, and Ayman and his siblings. The applicant responded that he did not say it was Ayman in picture 2, nor in pictures 5 & 6. His evidence was that picture 2 was of himself; picture 5 was of his elder brother and a neighbour’s grandmother and picture 6 was of himself and his cousins, Musa and Khalid.
92. When asked if he could explain the change in his evidence regarding the photographs, the applicant stated that he did not understand the contents of the witness statement when he signed it.
93. In re-examination the applicant was asked how he felt when he was asked questions about his journey to the UK. He said he felt like a criminal. When he tried to recall the events, it brought back nightmares. Since the morning, he did not have an appetite and felt like he was suffocating. He did not have much memory of the evidence from the morning. He was like any normal person, and it was normal to forget.
94. In light of the applicant’s new evidence given in re-examination, the respondent asked the applicant if he had gone back and asked his social worker for a referral to see a doctor about his mental health as he had been offered this service in 2023 and had declined. The applicant said he had received some counselling while living in Croydon, but this stopped after he moved placement.
Evidence of Ms Angela Pryle
95. Ms Pryle provided one witness statement dated 27 August 2024 which she adopted. Her background prior to retirement was a teacher. She had taught in London schools for approximately 40 years in primary, secondary and special schools.
96. During cross-examination, Ms Pryle explained that the applicant was her first mentee, and she helped him with his Maths and English. She stated that his English on arrival was very poor, but he had made good progress. He was a bright teenager with a reasonable intellect and emotional problems but learnt quickly.
97. Ms Pryle mentioned that the applicant enjoyed listening to her read fables. On one occasion after she had finished reading, he asked her if the fable was true. She thought this was a ‘childish thing to do’ which demonstrated to her that he was a young person and not an adult.
98. Ms Pryle stated that she never doubted the applicant was 16 years old when she first met him as he acted like a young teenager, often crying for various reasons, including missing his mother, loneliness, and fear for the future. She did not consider that he may have presented as younger because he was studying in key areas below his age expectation.
99. Ms Pryle confirmed that she had been mentoring the applicant for approximately 18 months for two to three hours each week. She estimated that she had spent about 250-300 hours with him during that time.
Other Key Evidence
Norah Miburro
100. Ms Mibuuro was the applicant’s former social worker from Southwark Children’s Services. She completed the document titled ‘Observation form to be completed by allocated social worker ‘dated 04 May 2023 (at page 464 of the bundle). The form was completed after she had met the applicant on four occasions having first met him on 27 February 2023.
101. In terms of the applicant’s ‘physical appearance and demeanour,’ she observed that he was of medium build with well-developed muscles. In this regard, the applicant explained to her that he used to fetch water in Sudan and had been going to gym and playing football three times a week. Ms Mibuuro further observed that the applicant’s Adam’s apple could be seen but was not well developed and that he had no facial lines or facial hair.
102. In respect of his independent/self-care skills, Ms Mibuuro observed that he had good self-care skills although he needed to be prompted to keep his bedroom tidy. He was very good at cooking the food he knew how to cook and was being supported to learn to cook different dishes. He was able to travel independently on the bus once shown the route. She concluded that the age bracket best suited to the applicant was between 15-18 years old and regarded a 16-23 service as being appropriate for him.
‘Prince’ (Keyworker)
103. Prince was the applicant’s key worker at his placement. In his Observation Form dated 3 May 2023, he stated that he had spent ‘quality time’ with the applicant whom he described as having an ‘athletic build’ with a small Adam’s apple and a deep voice. He observed the applicant’s level of independence was ‘functional’ and that the applicant could cook, move round locally, do his own laundry, and maintain personal hygiene. Prince concluded that the age most suited to the applicant was 16.
Busola Giwa (IRO)
104. Busola Giwa was the applicant’s Independent Review Officer (IRO) employed by Southwark Children’s Social Care. She stated in her Observation Form dated 21 July 2023 that she had met the applicant once only face to face and virtually on two occasions. She stated that she is a Black African woman with access to African children both professionally and in her private life. She stated that the applicant’s muscle development was that of an African adult male and that he was no longer growing, his physical features having been formed. Further, that voice was broken and that he talked like an adult.
105. Ms Giwa stated that the applicant’s physical appearance when compared to other black African children was advanced and that although the applicant maintained that he is a child his thought processes, body language and communication is controlled and presented in a way that a child would not likely to be able to do. In this regard, Ms Giwa said that his demands and expectations were not consistent with that of a child and that in conversation he was not relaxed and was constantly second guessing what would be the next question. She concluded that his reactions were calculated and did not let go as a child would do.
106. Ms Giwa stated that the applicant was matured in his views and outlook in a way that adults functioned. Additionally, he was reported to be independent in all areas of his life, including budgeting, cooking, and cleaning with his only reservation being that he wanted more money.
107. Ms Giwa also mentioned that the applicant struggled with boundaries and guidance during foster care as he wanted to do things his way and could not accept being treated as a child. He was then moved to a semi-independent placement where he settled due to less rules.
108. Ms Giwa concluded that the age bracket most suited to the applicant was between 19-23 years old, observing that he was at least 23 years old or an immature 19-year-old.
Erinc Argun Kayim
109. Ms Kayim provided two witness statements dated 09 August 2024 and 12 August 2024 respectively on behalf of the applicant in her role working as a Children’s Advisor in the Age Dispute Project at the Refugee Council.
110. Although Ms Kayim worked to support age disputed children and young people she was not trained in, nor conducts, age assessments. At the time of her first statement, she had been working with the applicant for three months since May 2024 and had met with him in person on one occasion and seen him remotely in video calls on a weekly basis. In total, Ms Kayim considered her interaction amounted to several hours.
111. Ms Kayim stated that the applicant had been very upset by the negative outcome of the respondent’s age assessment. She observed him crying and being anxious about having to move into an adult placement. Her evidence was that the applicant’s behaviour and responses were very much in line with how young people in his age group behaved and that he acted in accordance with his claimed age of 17.
112. Her conclusion was that the applicant had never given her any indication that he could be older than his claimed age of 17 at the time of writing her first statement and that his presentation was also consistent with his claimed age.
Alex Pang
113. Mr Pang provided a witness statement dated 09 August 2024 in support of the applicant’s challenge to the respondent’s age assessment. He is a Mentoring Co-ordinator with Hope for the Young which offers one to one tailored mentoring support to enable young refugees to settle into their communities and pursue their goals.
114. Mr Pang first met the applicant virtually in October and November 2023. He has continued contact with the applicant mainly through text and phone. Mr Pang did not claim to have any age assessment expertise but stated that his prior occupation as a secondary school teacher provided him with experience and an understanding of young people and their behaviours. In this context, Mr Pang stated that the applicant had informed him of his claimed age of 17 and that he had no reason to believe this was a lie. He further stated that the applicant displayed typical teenage behaviour.
Faith Banton
115. Faith Banton provided a witness statement dated 23 August 2024. She is a qualified social worker employed by the respondent and managed a leaving care team and an age assessment team. She stated that in August 2023 the social care records detailed a missing episode in which the applicant went to Scotland, travelling independently. While he was away, staff at his placement found drugs in his room which appeared to be hashish or a similar substance during an inspection. The applicant denied it was his even though no one else in the placement had access to his room.
116. Of note, Ms Banton observed that the applicant’s actions in going to Scotland suggested a degree of autonomous independence not usually seen in his claimed age given he left his placement and travelled to another country.
Roberto Gouveia
117. Mr Roberto Goveia provided three witness statements dated 06 September 2024, 06 January 2025, and 10 February 2025, respectively. He is a qualified social worker employed by the London Borough of Southwark currently working as a specialist age assessor. He was the lead assessor with Caroline Curtis on the respondent’s age assessment.
118. Mr Gouveia’s first and third witness statements addresses the concerns around interpretation raised by the applicant. Mr Gouveia stated that he personally explained the age assessment process to the applicant at the start of the first meeting. The interpreter ‘Nawal’ and the applicant also spoke to each other to ensure that they understood each other. The applicant also signed the consent form to confirm that he understood the interpreter.
119. Mr Gouveia stated that the same interpreter ‘Nawal’ was used for the interviews held on 14, 19 & 29 September 2024. He did not observe any difficulties from the applicant in understanding the interpreter. An appropriate adult was present throughout the age assessment interviews and the applicant did not raise any concerns about the interpreter or any communication issues with anyone present. There was no request to change the interpreter to a Sudanese Arabic interpreter.
120. In respect of the last interview held on 02 April 2024, Mr Gouveia stated that a different interpreter was used (Jabir) purely because the interpreting service provided a different interpreter.
121. Mr Gouveia confirmed that he is careful to ensure that young people understood the interpreters and given his experience he is alert to any difficulties with the interpreter, for example, if the question and the answer does not correspond. He said if a communication issue arose, he would change the interpreter and re-arrange the interview. He also said that if there was any difficulty with the interpretation, other than the applicant, the interpreter would inform him or the appropriate adult. In this instance no once raised any concerns.
122. In his second witness statement, Mr Gouveia stated that he has completed approximately 50 age assessments since 2018. In respect of the age assessment completed for the applicant, interviews were held on 14, 19, 29 September 2023 & 02 April 2024. A decision meeting was held on 10 May 2024. Mr Gouveia stated that the duration of the first and second interviews was approximately four hours each. The third and fourth interviews (minded to sessions) took approximately two hours each.
123. Mr Gouveia stated that from the outset he was of the view the applicant may have been an adult because the developmental characteristics commonly seen in a young person of his claimed age were not present and his appearance was suggestive of an adult male over 18. He stated that a ‘minded to session’ was carried out to clarify some of the information provided by the applicant and to give him the opportunity to respond. This related to his friend ‘Ayman’ who the applicant said looked like him and they shared social media accounts. The applicant was unable to contact Ayman and did not have a photograph of him.
Caroline Curtis
124. Caroline Curtis provided one witness statement dated 16 January 2025. She is employed by the London Borough of Southwark as a senior social worker. She has extensive experience of working with and age assessing children and young people across the age spectrum and from a diverse range of backgrounds. She has completed approximately seven age assessments since 2019 as a lead age assessor and approximately 10 age assessments in the same period as a second assessor.
125. Ms Curtis confirmed that the respondent’s age assessment was conducted over four appointments and that an appropriate adult was present throughout as stated by Mr Gouveia in his second witness statement dated 06 January 2025. She said that she approached every assessment with an open objective mindset which allowed her to gather and analyse information in a holistic way.
126. Ms Curtis stated that while physical appearance cannot be a determinative factor and that it is important to approach the assessment task in an inquiring mind, it was her view from the outset that the applicant may have been an adult as the developmental characteristics commonly seen in a young person of his claimed age were not present and his appearance was suggestive of an adult over 18.
127. Ms Curtis explained that decisions made in relation to an assessed age must be by agreement of both assessors. The professional standard within such decision making should be that if there is a difference in views regarding possible age, the benefit of the doubt principle should be adopted in favour of the young person. This essentially involved one assessor accommodating a view that they may not wholly share but which both assessors are confident about and could defend if necessary.
Tamzin Brown
128. Tamzin Brown provided one witness statement dated 22 January 2025 in support of the applicant’s challenge to the respondent’s age assessment. Ms Brown works as an advocate at Corum Voice representing the interests of children in care and young care leavers up to the age of 25.
129. Ms Brown stated that on 04 October 2023, she had a telephone call with the applicant. He told her that the final interview for his age assessment had taken place on 29 September 2023 and that the interpreter who had been used for each appointment (14, 19 & 29 September) spoke Arabic but not specifically Sudanese Arabic. She said he had told the age assessors that he did not understand and had advised the interpreter on multiple occasions that they were not interpreting what he was saying correctly. He confirmed that an appropriate adult was present but was unsure whether they were aware of the issue with interpretation.
130. Ms Brown stated that she informed the applicant’s social worker, Ms Norah Mibuuro on 5 October 2023 and Jonas Agambire, the team manager about the interpretation issue. She also informed a community care solicitor and the Migrant’s Children’s Project advice line to seek their respective advice.
131. Ms Brown said she heard back from Ms Miburro on 11 October 2023. She informed her that she had spoken to the applicant after the last age assessment session and he had advised her that there were no issues.
Discussion and Findings
Interpretation
132. As noted at paragraph 48 of this decision the applicant complained about the absence of a Sudanese Arabic interpreter during the age assessment interviews conducted by the respondent. As a result, he claims he did not fully understand everything being said and that is why there are inconsistencies in his answers. Ms Nawal Al-Asadi was the interpreter for three of the four interviews held on 14, 19 & 29 September 2023. She also interpreted at the additional meeting held on 29 September 2023 with the applicant’s social worker, Ms Norah Mibuuro. Another interpreter, ‘Jabir’ was the interpreter at the last interview held on 02 April 2024.
133. The ADCS Guidance provides (at page 20) that social workers should check thoroughly to ensure that interpreters and the child understand each other during the age assessment.
134. Mr Gouveia, the lead Social worker who conducted the age assessment process on behalf of the respondent confirmed in his witness evidence that he personally explained the age assessment process to the applicant at the start of the first meeting and that the interpreter and the applicant also spoke to each other to ensure that they understood each other.
135. Mr Gouveia further referenced the signed consent form by the applicant which confirmed that he understood the interpreter. An appropriate adult was also present throughout the age assessment interviews. Mr Gouveia stated that the applicant did not raise any concerns about the interpreter or any communication issues with anyone present. There was no request to change the interpreter to a Sudanese Arabic interpreter.
136. Mr Gouveia stated that he was always careful to ensure that young people understood the interpreters and given his experience around such matters, he was always alert to any difficulties with the interpreter, for example, if the question and the answer did not correspond. If a communication issue arose, he would change the interpreter and re-arrange the interview. He also said that if there was any difficulty with the interpretation, other than the applicant, the interpreter would inform him or the appropriate adult. In this instance no once raised any concerns.
137. During the applicant’s evidence he was taken by Ms Davies to the respondent’s document (at page 149 of bundle) titled ‘Pro Forma for Age Assessment – compliant with the Merton Judgement’. The applicant confirmed that it was his signature in a box on the form dated 14/09/2023 which declared ‘I confirm I understand the purpose of the assessment, that I am feeling well and that I understand the interpreter’.
138. Ms Davies also referred to two other boxes under his signature on the document. One was signed by the attending Interpreter, Nawal Al-Asadi. She had signed a declaration that stated, ‘The applicant has confirmed understanding, that they are feeling well and the reasons for the assessment have been explained to them by the Social Work Assessors, and through my translation.’
139. The third and final box on the document was signed by the ‘Appropriate Adult’ and dated 14/09/2023. The declaration stated, ‘I confirm the person being assessed confirmed they understand the interpreter, the purpose of the assessment has been explained, the person has signed the Pro Forma, and the person has confirmed they are fit and well to undertake the assessment.’
140. In response to the question whether the applicant had understood the declaration he signed on 14 September 2023 about understanding the interpreter, the applicant stated in evidence that he was confused and did not understand her correctly. He confirmed he had not complained at any of the interviews because he did not know he could do so.
141. The applicant said it was clear to those attending the interviews that he did not understand the interpreters. He said they (mentioning Nawal and Jabir) made a lot of mistakes as they did not understand the Sudanese Arabic dialect.
142. The applicant was asked about whether the appropriate adult raised any concerns. He said the appropriate adult said nothing and only asked about breaks.
143. The applicant was asked if he remembered attending a meeting on 29 September 2023 with his social worker, Norah Mibuurro. This followed the age assessment interview on the same date. At that meeting ‘Nawal’ had interpreted and Ms Mibuuro recorded that the applicant had stated that the age assessment interviews had gone well. She also recorded that the applicant had raised no concerns or complaints.
144. The applicant replied that he did not remember the meeting with Ms Miburro, nor any interviews where ‘Nawal’ had interpreted. He only remembered ‘Jabir’ but he accepted that other interpreters were also used in the interviews. It was put to him that if there was an issue with the interpretation at the meeting he would have remembered. He replied there were problems, but he could not recall the dates.
145. I have considered the applicant’s assertion that he did not understand the interpreters during the respondent’s age assessment process. I do not accept his complaints to be credible for the reasons I set out below.
146. First, the age assessment interviews attended by the applicant lasted several hours in total. The applicant said it was ‘clear’ to those attending that he did not understand the interpreters. However, no one raised any concern, including the appropriate adult. Mr Gouveia, whose evidence I accept on this matter, is an experienced age assessor. He was alert to any problems with the interpreter and stated that it would have been obvious if the ‘flow’ of the questions and answers was disrupted in any way. This did not happen.
147. It is notable that the applicant did not raise any concerns about the interpreters until after three interview meetings had been concluded by which time several inconsistences had been revealed in his evidence. If the applicant were genuinely concerned about the quality of the interpretation provided at each interview it is not credible that he would have signed the consent form and waited until after the conclusion of three interviews. In support of this view, the ISW’s report states at paragraph 8.7. ‘In our interactions with [the applicant] he presented as a confident young person who is firmly able to voice his wishes and his feelings, he seems unlikely to be going along with the professionals if disputing his age…..’ This observation shows clearly that the applicant would not have sat back silently for hours if he genuinely believed that there was a problem with the interpretation.
148. Secondly, the applicant’s explanation that he was unaware that he could raise his concerns during the interview process rings hollow given the signed declaration and the fact that he felt able to raise his concerns on 4 October 2023 with Tamzin Brown, a person that he hardly knew at all. If he were able to do so with Ms Brown, there is no reason why he could not have raised his concerns with the age assessors or the appropriate adult who were present throughout. The declaration that he signed specifically stated he understood the interpreter.
149. Furthermore, his complaint to Tamzin Brown is inconsistent with what he told his own social worker on 29 September 2023, namely, that everything had gone well. He has not denied telling his social worker what she has reported.
150. Accordingly, for all the reasons mentioned, I reject the applicant’s complaints that the interpretation has affected the quality of his answers during the respondent’s age assessment process. I find there is no substance to his complaint.
Applicant’s Credibility
151. Although I have considered the evidence holistically, I must start somewhere, and the best place is the applicant’s account of how and when he claimed to know his birthdate.
152. The applicant stated in his age assessment interviews that his mother told him about his date of birth. He said that she showed him an A4 size of paper when he was about ten years old. She did so because he had just left school. He stated to the respondent age assessors that the paper had his picture on it although he could not say what age he was in the picture. It is notable that he made no reference to a picture on his birth certificate or a refugee card when interviewed by the ISW assessors.
153. During his evidence, the applicant explained that it was not his birth certificate that had his photograph on it but rather his refugee card from the camp where he lived previously. He was asked why there was no reference in the interview notes to a refugee card. The applicant said he was confused, and the respondent’s age assessors had bombarded him with questions and were speaking quickly. He accepted that he did not ask them to slow down.
154. The interview notes clearly show that on two occasions he said that his picture was on his birth certificate. Although he claims to have been confused, he did not raise it at the time with anyone. He did not raise it with the ISW assessors. I do not accept that he was confused. Nowhere in the contemporaneous interview notes does he mention a refugee card. It is clear that he has changed his account without providing any reasonable explanation.
155. In light of the foregoing, I find the applicant’s assertion that his photograph was on a refugee card as opposed to his birth certificate to lack credibility. The whole episode brings into sharp focus whether the applicant’s account that he saw his birth certificate in the first place is truthful. In light of my finding about the picture, I put little weight on the applicant’s account that his mother showed him his birth certificate.
156. The applicant was also questioned by Ms Davies about the account he gave to his social worker, Norah Mibuuro about breaking out of the prison in Libya and escaping which she recorded in the Observation notes (page 464 of the bundle). He confirmed in evidence that he did speak to her about his time in prison but did not say that he broke out and escaped. What he told her was that people from the Sudan Embassy came and arranged his release.
157. I have considered the evidence. The applicant has not challenged the accuracy of any other part of the observation notes recorded by Ms Mibuuro on 04 May 2023 which is written in the first person. I find that it is more likely than not that the account provided by Ms Mibuuro has been recorded accurately. The applicant has advanced no reason why she would have recorded the other details correctly but simply got it wrong when writing about him breaking out of prison and escaping. I do not accept his assertion that the recorded account by Ms Mibuuro is inaccurate. I find the applicant’s attempt to change his account while not directly bearing on the question of his age nonetheless affects his credibility.
158. Another area of contention which affects the applicant’s credibility is his social media regarding his Instagram profile which has two accounts and his relationship with another male called ‘Ayman.’
159. When the applicant was asked why he had an Instagram profile with two accounts (one of them with a name in Arabic ‘styfnkrnqs’ and a second one called ‘hmwdykrnqs’) on his phone, he stated that Ayman had created the first account for himself. He then created the second account for the applicant as the applicant was unable to do it for himself.
160. The applicant’s Instagram profile has a registered date of birth of 01 January 2000. In relation to a Snapchat opened in the UK it was observed that the applicant had used his claimed date of birth of 19 February 2007.
161. The applicant said in evidence that he did not have any social media in Sudan in 2020 and only had access to a smartphone and the internet when he was in Libya in March 2021. He claims that he did not have an Instagram account until he came to the UK in 2023.
162. A photograph of the applicant was posted on one of the Instagram accounts on 15 April 2020 when the applicant says that he was in Sudan without any social media. His explanation was that he took the picture, and Ayman posted it to his own account which he then gave to the applicant to use. The applicant initially told the respondent’s age assessors that picture 2 was himself but later changed his response to say that it was actually ‘Ayman’ and that they looked similar.
163. The applicant confirmed that he told the truth when he made his two witness statements on 09 August 2024 and 28 August 2024. He was taken to paragraph 8 of his second witness statement. There he had stated that picture 2 was ‘Ayman’ and that they looked like each other. He was next taken to pictures 5 & 6. There he had stated, respectively, that it was Ayman’s brother and grandmother, and Ayman and his siblings. The applicant responded that he did not say it was Ayman in picture 2, nor in pictures 5 & 6. His evidence was that picture 2 was of himself; picture 5 was of his elder brother and a neighbour’s grandmother and picture 6 was of himself and his cousins, Musa and Khalid. He said his witness evidence was wrong.
164. The applicant confirmed that five photographs posted on the following dates were all of him:
20 September 2022 (page 596 of the bundle)
09 January 2022 (page 597 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 599 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 602 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 604 of the bundle)
165. It was put to the applicant that all the photos had been posted on his Instagram account before he said he had an Instagram account. The applicant replied that the account belonged to Ayman and the photographs were posted by him.
166. Regarding his relationship with ‘Ayman,’ the applicant said he was not in contact with him. Ayman was his elder brother’s friend, and he knew him from Sudan. He was like a brother to the applicant. They were in contact through Facebook when the applicant was in Libya and he knew that Ayman was in the UK but not his location. They met him by coincidence at a Mosque in Woolwich Arsenal after applicant had arrived in London. They last met at London Bridge when the applicant told Ayman about his situation, but Ayman was drunk and was not interested in helping him.
167. The applicant said at that time Ayman had a smartphone and he was able to access social media. He stated that Ayman gave him his Instagram account and when they used to play football together in Woolwich, Ayman would use his account on the applicant’s smartphone. The applicant stated that during the age assessment interviews he gave the respondent’s age assessors Ayman’s mobile number and also tried to call him in their presence but there was no response.
168. The applicant was asked if the date of 01 January 2000 stated on his Instagram profile was his date of birth. He responded, ‘of all the people I‘m the lucky one, just me, how can I be born on this date?’
169. The applicant denied in evidence that he had an Instagram account on 15 April 2020 or that he had told the respondent’s age assessors that he and Ayman looked similar. He did not respond to the assertion that having told the age assessors that he and Ayman looked similar that he went on to say, ‘We are from the same tribe.’ He said that picture 2 had been taken by his brother and passed to Ayman who posted it on his (Ayman’s) account.
170. The applicant was asked if he remembered telling the age assessors that picture 6 (on page 471 of the bundle) was a photograph of Ayman and his younger brothers. The applicant said he did not remember saying that. The picture was of him, not Ayman. He was asked why was the picture on his TikTok account. The applicant replied that Ayman had taken the picture from Instagram and sent it to him on Facebook and he then posted it on his TikTok account in August 2021.
171. The applicant confirmed that he had a device to take pictures in 2021 when he was in Libya and had sent pictures to Ayman who was in the UK. Although he did not meet Ayman until he arrived in the UK in 2023, he sent him pictures in 2022 when he was still outside the UK.
172. It was put to the applicant that he had told the age assessors that Ayman had been in the UK for about four years, which meant that at the time of his age assessment in 2023, Ayman would have been in the UK since around 2019. The applicant said he did not know, but Ayman was not in Libya when he was there.
173. It was put to the applicant that it was surprising that as he regarded him as an elder brother and he knew that he was in the UK that he did not arrange to meet with Ayman. The applicant replied, ‘What do you mean?’
174. It was further put to the applicant that as he and Ayman both had a social media presence it was surprising there was no picture of the two of them together. The applicant replied that when he arrived, he did not have any clothes and was only given £30 by his social worker which was not enough.
175. The applicant said in addition to meeting at the mosque he and Ayman used to play football in Woolwich. Although he used to take his phone with him to football, he did not think of taking a photograph of them together as he was just happy.
176. The applicant said that he could not remember on what date he lost contact with Ayman. He agreed that on 29 September 2023 he had told the age assessors that he would get a photograph with Ayman and send it to them. It was sometime after this date that he lost contact with Ayman.
177. The applicant was referred to his undated handwritten note (without a statement of truth) translated from Arabic to English and admitted into evidence on 09 June 2025. He confirmed that the note was written for his solicitor and should have read ‘The matter that confused me in the age assessment sessions…. ‘. The reference to ‘you’ in the first line was incorrect.
178. In the applicant’s handwritten note, in relation to the pictures on Ayman’s account, he stated ‘All these pictures are related to my father’s death. I took these pictures in Biala City a few days after my father’s death to issue his death certificate.’ The applicant’s father (as stated at page 491 of the case bundle) died in May 2020. Picture 2 is dated April 2020 which is obviously not a few days after his father’s death and the other pictures are dated in 2022 which is a significant period afterwards. The applicant’s assertion about when the photos were taken is therefore completely wrong and further damages his credibility.
179. The applicant confirmed that pictures 2 & 3 (on pages 468/469 of the bundle) were of him and that picture 5 (on page 471) was his elder brother with a neighbour’s grandmother. Picture 6 (on page 471) was also of him with his cousins Musa and Khalid.
180. The applicant accepted that it would have been helpful for Ayman to have given evidence but said he had become an alcoholic.
181. When asked if he could explain the inconsistencies in his evidence regarding the photographs, the applicant stated that he did not understand the contents of the witness statement when he signed it.
182. Having considered the evidence, concerning the applicant’s social media and his relationship with Ayman, it is clear that the applicant has significantly contradicted his previous witness evidence and what he had told the respondent’s age assessors.
183. The applicant initially claimed that picture 2 on the Instagram account was of himself, but then said it was Ayman, explaining that they both looked the same. In his witness evidence, he stated that pictures 2 & 6 were of Ayman but has now stated that they are both of him. There are also other contradictions regarding who took the photos and posted them.
184. In re-examination, the applicant told Mr Persey that he could not recall the evidence as it was a long time ago and he was only human. He felt bombarded by questions and the process. He further stated that he did not understand the content of his witness evidence or the statement of truth that he signed.
185. I find his explanation regarding the inconsistencies in his witness evidence to have no merit because his legal representative was under a professional duty to ensure that he understood the witness statement before signing it. There is also a statement of truth by the interpreter on the witness statement.
186. The applicant claims that he was tired and bombarded by questions but there is nothing recorded by anyone present at the time to suggest this was the case. His explanation does not explain why he could not instantly recognise himself in pictures 2 and 6 when asked by the respondent’s age assessors, and why he then went on to state in sworn witness evidence that pictures 2 & 6 were of Ayman. It is clear that he knew that the picture looked like himself and that is why he went on to say that he and Ayman looked the same to try and cover the fact that picture 2 was obviously himself. This was not confusion but evasion on his part to avoid linking the Instagram account with the date of birth to him.
187. Overall, none of the contradictory evidence can simply be explained away on the basis of not being able to remember, mental health or not understanding the statement of truth. None of those explanations are credible in the circumstances of this case. His witness statements were made within the past 12 months. The applicant confirmed there were no mental health issues or diagnosis relevant to his account, and he refused a CAMHS referral by his social worker in 2023 concerning sleep issues. Furthermore, his professional advisers were required to ensure that he understood his witness evidence before signing it. There is nothing to suggest that his professional legal advisers and/or the interpreter who also made a declaration, were remiss in their professional duties. The clear inference is that the applicant has been evasive and has deliberately sought to change aspects of his evidence in order to bolster his case. I find the inconsistencies are material and that they significantly damage his credibility.
188. As regards Ayman, while his true status in the UK remains unclear, it is surprising there is not a single picture of Ayman or of him and the applicant together. The applicant’s explanation that he was just happy to be with Ayman lacks credibility in light of the applicant’s evidence that Ayman was like a brother to him and that they played football together, attended the mosque and shared social media accounts.
189. Now that the applicant has admitted that pictures 2 & 6 are of himself, looking at the facts holistically, the only reasonable and proper inference to draw is that the Instagram profile and the account with a date of birth of 01 January 2000 belongs to the applicant. The Instagram account is on the applicant’s phone and contains his photos which he now accepts. There is no plausible evidence produced by the applicant to show that Ayman exists.
190. Although the applicant claims that he had no Instagram account or internet access in 2020 while he was in a camp in Sudan, given the multiple inconsistencies in his evidence, I find that his credibility is damaged regarding that assertion and that it is more likely than not that he did have internet access in 2020 while in Sudan.
Other Evidence
Behaviour
191. Several aspects arise in respect of the applicant’s behaviour. These are: (i) foster care (ii) Independence and self-care, and (iii) money.
192. In respect of foster care, the evidence of the applicant’s IRO, Ms Giwa, is instructive. She observed that the applicant struggled with boundaries and guidance during foster care as he wanted to do things his way and could not accept being treated as a child. He was then moved to a semi-independent placement where he settled due to less rules.
193. The evidence is confirmed in the respondent’s care plan prepared by Jonas Agambire. This records that the applicant stated that he was not happy in the foster home. It also records that the foster parents told Mr Agambire that the applicant found it difficult to follow rules and boundaries and that he smoked in his bedroom. Mr Agambire recorded that both the applicant and the foster parents wanted to the placement to end.
194. In terms of the applicant’s independence, his social worker, keyworker, and IRO all noted a strong degree of independence. The applicant’s independence level was viewed as ‘functional.’ He was able to cook, budget, clean and travel independently once shown the route. In this regard, he unilaterally left London and travelled to Scotland by himself. He could also do his laundry and had a good level of personal hygiene. Ms Giwa observed that the applicant’s demands and expectations were not consistent with that of a child and that in conversation he was not relaxed and was constantly second guessing what would be the next question. She concluded that his reactions were calculated, and he did not let go as a child would do.
195. Finally, in relation to money, it was noted in evidence that in response to a question asking why there was no photo of Ayman, the applicant avoided the question and replied that when he arrived he did not have any clothes and was only given £30 by his social worker which was not enough.
196. The above evidence in relation to foster care, functional independence, self-care, and money has not been challenged by the applicant although Ms Giwa’s opinion is disputed.
Appearance and Demeanour
197. It is trite law that physical appearance is not a determining factor and therefore limited weight should be given when assessing age, applying R (on the application of AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 118. That said, appearance is one of the several factors to be taken into account as part of a holistic assessment of the evidence. In this respect, the witness evidence of several professionals is instructive, together with the available photos taken between 2020 and 2024.
198. In terms of appearance, the applicant’s keyworker described the applicant as having an ‘athletic build’ with a small Adam’s apple and a deep voice. His social worker, Ms Mibuuro, also considered the applicant to be of medium build with well-developed muscles. In this regard, the applicant explained to her that he used to fetch water in Sudan and had been going to gym and playing football three times a week. Ms Mibuuro further observed that the applicant’s Adam’s apple could be seen but was not well developed and that he had no facial lines or facial hair.
199. The applicant’s IRO stated that as a Black African woman she has access to African children both professionally and in her private life. She stated that the applicant’s muscle development was that of an African adult male and that he was no longer growing, his physical features having been formed. Further, that voice was broken and that he talked like an adult.
200. Ms Giwa stated that the applicant’s physical appearance when compared to other black African children was advanced and although the applicant maintained that he is a child his thought processes, body language and communication is controlled and presented in a way that a child would not likely to be able to do. In this regard, Ms Giwa said that his demands and expectations were not consistent with that of a child and that in conversation he was not relaxed and was constantly second guessing what would be the next question. She concluded that his reactions were calculated and did not let go as a child would do.
201. The respondent’s report stated that the applicant presented features comparable to a young adult aged 20 or over rather than a 16 year old child and that the assessors struggled to find characteristics comparable to Sudanese children aged 16. The ISW report rightly recalls that physical appearance is not a reliable method of assessing age particularly those within the age bracket of 18-25 years and concluded that the applicant’s physical appearance was more indicative of someone of a younger age than his current documented age.
202. Turning to the photos of the applicant taken between 2020 and 2024 (pages 445 and 595 to 606) the respondent’s assessors stated that they were unable to identify any changes to his physical appearance from August 2021 to his current presentation which was unusual for teenagers going through such a crucial period of development.
Other Witness Evidence
203. Ms Mibuuro was the applicant’s former social worker. She had met him four times before concluding in May 2023 (when he claimed that he was 16 years old) that the age bracket best suited to the applicant was between 15-18 years old and regarded a 16-23 service as being appropriate for him. Although she is experienced in professional age assessment, she has had some interactions with the applicant by the date of her opinion. I therefore place some weight on her opinion.
204. Ms Giwa was the applicant’s IRO. She has had some interactions with the applicant over a period of time. She also has experience of the LAC (Looked After Child Review) and working with African children on which she has based some of her detailed reasoning for concluding that the age bracket most suited to the applicant is between 19-23 years old, observing that he was at least 23 years old or an immature 19-year-old. I therefore place more weight on her opinion than on Ms Mibuuro’s opinion.
205. Mr Pang and Ms Kayum are not social workers and have no age assessment experience. They have had some interactions with the applicant online and face to face. Although both of them have worked with teenagers and have concluded that the applicant’s behaviour is in line with his claimed age, there is little detailed reasoning behind their opinions. I therefore place little weight on their respective opinions.
206. ‘Prince’ was the applicant’s keyworker. He has had interactions with the applicant and concluded that he was 16 years old. However, there is no reasoning behind his opinion. I therefore attach little weight to his opinion.
207. Ms Pryle gave live evidence and said she found no reason to doubt the applicant’s claimed age. She had spent over 250 hours tutoring the applicant. During that time Ms Pryle had no reason to question the applicant’s credibility given her pastoral teaching role. Her good faith is undisputed but that is not enough where specialist expertise in age assessment is lacking, and age assessment is not an exact science. I therefore attach little weight to her opinion.
208. Overall, none of the above-mentioned witnesses had any reason to question the applicant’s credibility or account. They were retained for their specific roles in order to support and provide services to the applicant. That did not require them to delve into and question his claimed age. As such their evidence in my view carries little weight overall when determining the core question of the applicant’s age.
Consideration of the Age Assessment Reports
209. I have carefully reviewed the respective age assessment reports conducted by the respondent and the ISW. No issues have been raised by the parties concerning whether either report is a full Merton-compliant assessment. That was not an issue before the hearing.
210. The key differences between the respective age reports turn on the treatment of the applicant’s social media account and his relationship with Ayman and the chronology of events.
211. In relation to the chronology, the respondent’s report highlighted that when the applicant was asked how many days had passed after the Janjaweed incident had taken place at the camp before his conversation with Ahmed about leaving Sudan, the applicant replied ‘I can’t tell you because maybe after you are going to tell me I said so and so and I am not sure’. The respondent’s age assessors expressed surprise by this response as it demonstrated to them that the applicant was very aware that the information might be considered as part of the assessment and he was prepared to avoid sharing any information that might be perceived as contradictory of inconsistent.
212. It is worth recalling that nature and tone of the applicant’s response mentioned above is supported by the evidence of the IRO. She stated ‘in conversation [the applicant] was not relaxed and was constantly second guessing what would be the next question. His reactions were calculated and did not let go as a child would do.’
213. The applicant had also told his social worker that he travelled to Al Kufra (Libya) with 35 Sudanese young people, but he told the respondent‘s age assessors that he travelled to Libya with only his friend Ahmed, a driver, and his assistant.
214. The applicant did not mention the 35 Sudanese young people to the ISW assessors but maintained the same story of the journey he told to the respondent. These are material inconsistencies in his account of the journey which affects his credibility.
215. Turning to his social media accounts, the respondent’s age assessors considered that the applicant had not been entirely open and honest about his social media presence. The report states that he gave confusing and contradictory information about the social media accounts on his mobile phone as well as the ownership of the accounts which apparently kept switching back and forth with his friend Ayman.
216. The respondent’s report observed that after recognising himself in the photograph posted on the Instagram social media account in April 2020 (picture 2) the applicant changed his story to say it was Ayman and tried to justify the picture by saying that Ayman looked a lot like him when it was clear to the assessors that both pictures 2 & 6 were the applicant. In any event the applicant was unable to prove that Ayman looked like him because there were no pictures of the together and the applicant said he was no longer in contact with him.
217. As a result of the applicant’s responses, the respondent’s report stated that the age assessors main hypothesis was that the applicant may not have expected them to have assessed his Instagram account posts from 2020 as it clearly contradicts his claim that he never had any sort of internet connection until he was in Libya in 2021.
218. The ISW report deals briefly with the applicant’s social media presence at paragraph 6.7.1. It records that the applicant was very clear that the social media account with the date of birth of 01 January 2000 was the profile of his friend Ayman. The report states that due to there being photographs of the applicant’s father on there, the two had swapped this account and Ayman had randomly amended the date of birth. The applicant was clear that this was not a reflection of his date of birth.
219. At paragraph 8.16 of the ISW report it states that it is possible that the dates of birth within his other social media accounts which are supportive of his claimed age could be argued as accurate and the other (Instagram) inaccurate.
220. At paragraph 8.17 the ISW report states ‘[the applicant] has been consistent in the narrative provided to us…. Whilst the situation may be unusual (and we are in agreement with this assessment) we have to recognise that it is not entirely impossible that the two were sharing social media accounts.’
221. At paragraph 8.19, the ISW report states ‘Whilst we may consider that this narrative is implausible, given the [applicant’s] continued insistence we have to consider the benefit of the doubt principle which assumes that someone is telling the truth or acting with good intentions, even when there is lack of certainty or clear supporting evidence. This is considered important in age assessment, as there is no method of conducting the with 100% accuracy detailed within the ADCS guidelines’.
222. At paragraph 8.21 , the ISW assessors state that they do not believe that a high level of weighting can be afforded to the applicant’s social media as research highlights the unreliability of content posted by users on social media including that 22% of eight to seventeen years old claim to be 18 on social media’. They concluded that the evidence of the professionals should be afforded a higher weighting. As a result, the ISW report concluded that the applicant was aged 18-20 years at the date of the report and should be afforded the benefit of the doubt in respect of his claimed age.
223. The respondent’s report concluded that the applicant was in fact an adult over the age of 18 and more likely to be in the age bracket 21-24 with the age of 24 selected in line with his Instagram social media details.
224. In light of the findings of the respective age assessment reports, I must determine what weight to place on them.
225. The ISW’s approach to the age assessment process has been to apply the benefit of the doubt principle to the issues. The ADCS guidance notes that where definitive evidence is not available the benefit of the doubt should be granted to the children and young people presenting as such.
226. In considering the application of the benefit of the doubt principle, the professional standard is that where there are differing views within a range of acceptable or plausible views, age assessors are required to select that which is most favourable to the applicant and which they are able to defend.
227. The obvious flaw with the ISW’s approach is that it is based on an implausible account provided by the applicant in respect of his Instagram social media profile which puts his date of birth as 01 January 2000. In this regard, I agree with the submissions made by Ms Davies in closing that the principle of the benefit of the doubt does not sanction acceptance of an implausible account that falls outside the range. If an incredible account were required nonetheless to be accepted on the basis of the principle, it would be nonsensical to apply the Merton credibility criteria as credibility would not matter.
228. A further obvious weakness in the ISW report, which is not a criticism of the assessors, but simply a fact of the proceedings having evolved is that the applicant disavowed his statement of truth and his witness evidence at the hearing. His witness evidence regarding the persons in pictures 2 & 6 was false. The ISW assessors accepted his account of the persons in pictures 2 & 6 and the implausibility of his evidence regarding his Instagram profile which records a date of birth of 01 January 2000 and then sought to apply the benefit of the doubt principle in his favour.
229. In light of the false information, he has given about pictures 2 & 6, the ISW report and its factual foundation is clearly undermined. I therefore attach little weight to it.
230. In contrast, the respondent’s age assessors rightly perceived that the applicant was trying to mislead the assessment by changing the narrative several times concerning his Instagram social media account. They were right to adopt a cautious approach regarding the applicant’s account concerning his social media presence which has been vindicated. I therefore place significant weight on the respondent’s report.
Conclusions
231. It is instructive to recall following the decision of R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689 at [20] that in cases where the applicant does not produce any reliable documentary evidence of his date of birth or age as in this case, in such circumstances, the determination of age of the applicant will depend on the history he gives, on his physical appearance and on his behaviour.
232. The decision in Merton also held that lies may be told for reasons unconnected with the applicant’s case as to his age, for example to avoid return to the country of origin; further, that physical appearance cannot be isolated from the question of the veracity of the applicant’s appearance, behaviour and the credibility of his account which are all matters that reflect on each other.
233. Accordingly, it is axiomatic that the applicant’s credibility will be central to his claimed age. In this context, at the hearing, the applicant disavowed his witness evidence and statement of truth claiming that he was confused and did not understand what he was signing. I have already stated at paragraphs 185 -187 that I do not accept his explanation for the reasons stated.
234. I find there is a clear pattern that emerges regarding the applicant’s conduct in the age assessment process and proceedings that damages his credibility. Firstly, he claimed there were interpretation problems which seemingly only arose after three interviews had been completed even though no one else present saw any difficulties with flow of the question and answers. There are inconsistencies between his account to his social worker and information given to the respondent and ISW assessors. There are subtle inconsistencies between what the applicant said to the respondent age assessors and to the ISW assessors, for example, he did not mention to the ISW assessors about a picture on his birth certificate but he talked about an ID used in the refugee camp to access food with his date of birth written on it. On the other hand, he said to the ISW assessors that due to photographs of his father being on the social account belonging to ‘Ayman,’ he and Ayman swapped that account and Ayman randomly amended the date of birth on the social media account to 01 January 2000. That was never said to the respondent’s assessors.
235. It is also notable that when the applicant was questioned by the assessors about inconsistencies in his account his behaviour changed. In the ISW report, the assessors noted that when they sought to understand the inconsistencies that were present in the previous age assessment the applicant became frustrated and ‘presented as more stroppy with some sighs and clear annoyance in his tone.’ In the respondent’s report, it noted that there was a clear shift in the applicant’s demeanour and posture whilst discussing some of the inconsistencies in his account.
236. During cross examination, he changed his account about the persons in the pictures on the social media account and disavowed his statement of truth relating to his witness evidence. In re-examination, he said he was frustrated by being asked the same questions and told Mr Persey that he could not remember what he had said in witness evidence, including in the morning, leading to him saying that he did not understand the statement of truth that he had signed.
237. Mr Persey relied on the ADCS guidance and sought to explain the applicant’s behaviour on the basis that he was distraught and found it difficult to recall and engage with events which were traumatic and that the Tribunal should assess his account in this context.
238. In broad terms, I agree with Mr Persey’s submission. In considering the applicant’s account, I am conscious that even on the respondent’s case, he is a young man who may, by virtue of lengthy and difficult journey to the UK, have experienced trauma and distress. However, Mr Persey does not suggest that the applicant has a mental health condition which would impair his evidence but I accept as realistic that the applicant’s experiences in his journey to the UK may result in him being hesitant in his answers and perhaps not as forthcoming in giving his best evidence and that as a consequence I should not necessarily draw adverse inferences from the lack of detail in his answers.
239. That said, there have been multiple inconsistencies in his account throughout the age assessment process which go to well beyond mere detail, but instead to the central issues which damages his credibility. The most objective and persuasive evidence of his date of birth is his original social media account which records a date of birth of 01 January 2000.
240. Assessing the evidence holistically, and accepting that physical appearance and demeanour/behaviour are unreliable indicators of age and not determining factors, and therefore of limited weight, I find that it is more likely than not that the applicant is an adult aged 25 years old with a date of birth of 01 January 2000.
241. Drawing all the evidence and submissions together, I make the following findings:
(a) At the time the applicant arrived in the UK on or around 15 February 2023, he was aged 23 years and one month.
(b) At the time of the respondent’s age assessment decision of 13 May 2024, the applicant was aged 24 years and 4 months.
(c) The applicant is aged 25 years and 5 months at the time of the hearing.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
It is determined that the applicant’s date of birth is 01 January 2000 and that he is aged 25 years and 5 months at the date of the hearing.
Costs
1. The applicant has not been found to be the age he claims and has therefore lost this judicial review.
2. The applicant shall pay the respondent’s reasonable costs of the claim incurred with the sum payable to be determined in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.
Signed K.A. Khan Date 16 July 2025
Upper Tribunal Judge Khan
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
“HO”
(Anonymity Direction Made)
Applicant
And
LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Khan
HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Mr Ollie Persey of counsel, instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP, for the Applicant and Ms Sian Davies of counsel, instructed by the Respondent at a hearing held on 9 & 10 June 2025, and handed down on 16 September 2025
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
The Applicant’s date of birth is 01 January 2000, such that he was an adult when he arrived in the UK on or around 15 February 2023, and aged 25 at the date of this order.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s claim for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons in the attached judgment.
(2) The Applicant shall pay the respondent’s reasonable costs of the claim incurred with the sum payable to be determined in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013, but subject to costs protection under s.26 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
(3) There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly-funded costs in accordance with the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013 and CPR 47.18.
Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal
(4) No application has been made for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In any event, permission to appeal is refused, as there is no arguable error of law in my decision.
Signed: K.A.Khan
Upper Tribunal Judge Khan
Dated: 16 September 2025
The date on which this order was sent is given below
For completion by the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Sent / Handed to the applicant, respondent and any interested party / the applicant's, respondent’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date): 17/09/2025
Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:
Notification of appeal rights
A decision by the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review is a decision that disposes of proceedings.
A party may appeal against such a decision to the Court of Appeal on a point of law only. Any party who wishes to appeal should apply to the Upper Tribunal for permission, at the hearing at which the decision is given. If no application is made, the Tribunal must nonetheless consider at the hearing whether to give or refuse permission to appeal (rule 44(4B) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008).
If the Tribunal refuses permission, either in response to an application or by virtue of rule 44(4B), then the party wishing to appeal can apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. This must be done by filing an appellant’s notice with the Civil Appeals Office of the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the date the Tribunal’s decision on permission to appeal was sent (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52D 3.3).
Case No: JR-2024-LON-003184
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
HO
(Anonymity Direction Made)
Applicant
- and –
LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Ollie Persey
(instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP), for the applicant
Ms Sian Davies
(instructed by the London Borough of Southwark) for the respondent
Hearing date: 9 & 10 June 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge Khan:
1. The applicant has been granted permission for a judicial review of the respondent’s age assessment decision communicated to the applicant on or about 13 May 2024.
2. That decision is the outcome of a full age assessment by which the respondent assessed the applicant to be in the age range of 21 to 24 years old (the ‘respondent’s report’). The respondent adopted the date of birth of 01 January 2000 in line with social media details attributed to the applicant, making him 24 years old at the time of the age assessment.
3. Another full age assessment was undertaken by Independent Social Workers (the ‘ISW report’) on 17 and 19 March 2025. This assessed the applicant to be in the age range of 18 and 20 years old at the date of that age assessment.
4. The issue for resolution in these proceedings is the applicant’s age, which is in dispute between the parties. The applicant, a national of Sudan, claims that he was born on 19 February 2007 and that he was a 15-year-old child when he arrived in the UK on 15 February 2023 and was thus aged 17 years and two months plus at the time of the respondent’s age assessment.
5. The factual background of this case is set out in the marked ‘Draft Agreed Statement of Facts’ which is too lengthy to be reproduced here. I have treated this document as ‘Agreed’ as none of the facts stated were disputed during the hearing. Paragraphs (i)-(vi) of that document sets out the applicant’s personal, immigration and age assessment history as follows:
(i) The applicant claims to have been born on 19 February 2007 in Nyala Salam refugee camp in Darfur, Sudan. He claims to have arrived in the UK on 15 February 2023 in the back of a lorry.
(ii) The Home Office conducted an ‘Unaccompanied Child Welfare Interview’ with the applicant on 20 March 2023. The applicant was granted leave to remain on 15 July 2024.
(iii) The respondent undertook an age assessment of the applicant on 14, 19 & 29 September 2023 and 02 April 2024.
(iv) An appropriate adult and interpreter were present at each session.
(v) The age assessment document refers to information from three professionals who had worked with the applicant:
(a) Busola Giwa, the applicant’s Independent Reviewing Officer (‘IRO’)
(b) ‘Prince’, the applicant’s placement key worker
(c) Norah Mibuuro, the applicant’s social worker (employed by the respondent).
(vi) The conclusions of the age assessment was that the assessors believed the applicant to be over the age of 18, and more likely to be in the age bracket 21-24. The age of 24 was selected in line with the applicant’s social media details.
Procedural matters
6. A claim for judicial review was lodged in the Administrative Court on 08 August 2024. A subsequent claim for interim relief was lodged on 09 August 2024 because the applicant’s asylum accommodation was to be discontinued from 15 August 2024 due to his asylum support ending.
7. A hearing took place on 11 September 2024. Judge Michael Ford KC granted permission for judicial review on the primary ground that the assessment of age was wrong as a matter of fact, allowing the case to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal for fact-finding. The judge refused permission on the second and third grounds (procedural impropriety and/or insufficiency of reasons in the course of the respondent’s age assessment) finding them not arguable, thereby leaving the sole issue as relating to the question of age. The Judge also declined to grant further interim relief, citing the strength of social media evidence against the applicant.
8. Following an Order made on 27 November 2024 and a Case Management Hearing held on 12 March 2024, the Upper Tribunal issued a series of directions which included those dealing with social media evidence. The substantive fact-finding hearing was listed for 09-11 June 2025. The applicant and the respondent were granted permission to rely upon the witness statements that had been filed and served. It was further directed that all witness statements would stand as evidence-in-chief and there would be no cross-examination of the assessing social workers at the hearing.
9. Subsequently, the applicant applied for permission to file and rely on the ISW report which was granted on 14 May 2025.
10. On 06 June 2025, the applicant applied to admit a handwritten document and a translation thereof and to rely on the same in the proceedings. The document provided additional information as to the applicant’s relationship with a male named ‘Ayman’ and photographs on his social media account. Permission to admit the additional evidence was granted on 9 June 2025.
The Applicant’s case
11. In his first witness statement dated 09 August 2024, at paragraphs 4 to 6, the applicant states his personal circumstances and explains how he knows his age:
4. “I was born on 19 February 2007 in Nyala Salam refugee camp in Darfur. I lived in the camp with my mother, father, three older siblings Fawzy, Fatima, and Amira and three younger siblings…… My father passed away in the camp in May 2020 after an illness. …. When I left the camp in March 2021 all my siblings remained there.
5. I used to enjoy playing football and marbles with my friends in the camp. From 2013 until 2017, I attended school run by a charity where I learnt Arabic and Quran. When I was 10 years old (in 2017) I left school, as did my siblings because my father wanted us to focus on religion and learning the Quran which we did at the mosque…..
6. I know that my date of birth is 19 February 2007 because when I was 10 years old, before I left school, school organised vaccinations. They asked for my birth certificate and I remember my mother showing me it. She did not give it to me but just showed it to me. The age assessment states that I told the assessors that this birth certificate had a photograph on however this is not correct, the interpreter must have misunderstood me.”
12. At paragraphs 7 to 12 of his first witness statement, the applicant sets out how he came to leave Sudan and arrive in the UK. In summary, he states that on or around 05 March 2021 while he was playing football in the camp there was an attack by the Janjaweed. He ran home and talked to his friend Ahmed and together they agreed to leave the camp. He did not tell his mother or anyone else in his family as he knew his mother would not have agreed for him to go.
13. On or around 06 March 2021, he and Ahmed left the Nyala Salam Camp and travelled to Nyala City by tractor. The trip was funded by Ahmed. Once in Nyala City the applicant met someone, he considered a cousin who gave him some money, 20,000 Sudanese pounds to help him. They travelled to Al-Fashir and onto Kufra in Libya where they stayed for about five days before travelling to Tripoli. Once in Tripoli they stayed in a shared house with some other Sudanese refugees for about six months.
14. In September 2021, the applicant stated that Ahmed received some money from his brother in Europe, so they decided to cross the sea. However, they were arrested and taken to Ain-Zara jail where they stayed for three months. They were released in December 2021 with the help of the Sudanese Embassy and returned to the same shared house.
15. In May 2022, the applicant stated that Ahmed received some money and travelled to Europe. The applicant remained in Libya and in October 2022 left the shared house to work for a smuggler which he did until December 2022. On or around 27 December 2022, the applicant left Tripoli and travelled by boat to Italy. On the way the Italian authorities intervened as the boat had a hole in it, and he was taken to Lampedusa. After five days, he left for Milan with other refugees arriving around 03 January 2023 and then travelled to Ventimiglia. From there, he then travelled via Nice and Paris to Calais.
16. He stayed in Calais between 18-21 days and then climbed in the back of a goods lorry and arrived in the UK on 15 February 2023 getting off in Luton. In Luton, he was given some money by Sudanese people for the train and advised by them to go to London Bridge and head to a police station which he did. He was treated as a child by the police and initially placed in foster care, but they did not treat him well, so he was moved to semi-independent accommodation. He considered himself to be 15 years old at the time.
17. Regarding his relationship with Ayman and his social media, the applicant stated at paragraphs 16 &17 of his first witness statement that he met Ayman in Sudan as he was living at the Nyala Salam Camp. He them bumped into him in Woolwich Arsenal when he was living in London. Ayman was his brother’s friend. He had created the Instagram account which they both shared and posted on. The applicant said that he had asked Ayman to speak to the respondent on his behalf, but he was scared of getting into trouble and then disappeared and stopped contacting him.
18. The applicant said that he did not know the Instagram account had stated 01 January 2000 as a date of birth on registration. He thought that Ayman had selected this date thinking it was unique, but it was actually random. The applicant did not have any internet connection or social media until he arrived in Libya. At that time, he did not have a smartphone, only an old Nokia phone. Later, he got a smartphone which allowed him access to social media, and he set up a Facebook account for himself in Libya.
19. The applicant made a second witness statement dated 28 August 2024. In this witness statement at paragraphs 4 to 10, he addressed his social media presence and his relationship with Ayman. In summary, the applicant stated that Ayman was his brother’s friend (Fawzy), and he first met him in the Nyala Salam Camp. After arriving in the UK, he bumped into Ayman at a mosque in Woolwich. He did not meet him in Libya.
20. The applicant said he could not recall exactly when Ayman set up the Instagram accounts with Arabic names. There were two accounts. The first account was set up by Ayman using his own mobile phone. Ayman had control of it but gave it to the applicant. The applicant was unsure why Ayman had done this as he had to use Ayman’s mobile phone to check Instagram reels and videos.
21. Ayman had also set up the second account. This was done in the applicant’s name using the applicant’s mobile phone so that he had control of it.
22. The applicant stated that Ayman did not set up his Facebook account. This was done by one of Ayman’s relatives when he was in Libya. Likewise, it was Ayman who had set up the applicant’s Tik Tok account.
23. At paragraph 8 of the second witness statement, the applicant identified the individuals in photographs 2-6 that were mentioned in the respondent’s age assessment at page 27. In respect of the photographs, the applicant stated that photograph 2 was ‘Ayman’ observing that ‘We really look like each other’. Photographs 3 & 4 were the applicant. Photograph 5 was ‘Ayman’s brother and grandmother and Photograph 6 was ‘Ayman and his siblings’.
24. At paragraph 10 of his second witness statement, the applicant stated that he had tried many times to contact Ayman, but it appeared that he had changed his number.
25. The applicant also relies upon the outcome of a full age assessment carried out by Independent Social Workers on 17 & 19 March 2025 and dated 01 April 2025. It is not disputed that the ISW report which was conducted by two independent social workers sets out the findings of a Merton compliant age assessment.
26. The ISW report criticises the respondent’s report. At paragraph 10.3. it notes ‘The age allocated to him seems to be primarily based upon a date of birth recorded within one of his social media accounts and is in excess of any of the estimates provided by professionals who had met him at this time.”
27. By contrast, at paragraph 10.4. of the ISW report, it states ‘In our review of the evidence completed within this assessment and that provided as part of the legal bundle we have found an overwhelmingly large number of professionals who are in support of [the applicant’s] claimed age. These professionals are all suitably qualified and have known [the applicant] for a prolonged period of time and therefore we find their evidence should be afforded a higher level of weighting. We have found [the applicant] has continued to be consistent in the information that he has provided, has provided a high level of information and detail and his narrative has been consistent with the research that we have completed.”
28. In relation to social media, the ISW Report at paragraph 8.16. (evidence table) acknowledged that the applicant’s explanation of social media use was not entirely convincing and therefore placed medium weighting on it. The ISW report stated “Whilst some of [the Applicant’s] social media provides an age which is supportive of his claimed age, one of the Instagram accounts provides a date of birth which makes him 25 years of age at the time of writing. [The applicant] has provided statements concerning why this is present, although this does not entirely seem to be a convincing narrative.”
29. In respect of ‘Ayman’ the ISW report at paragraph 8.20. states ‘The narrative suggests that [the applicant] has been quite evasive concerning Ayman, however, when the essence of what [the applicant] has said is considered, he has shared how he and Ayman know each other, how they reunified and tried to call Ayman during the interview process. As far as a I am aware no details are known about Ayman, and whist it may have been in [the applicant’s] benefit for Ayman to meet or speak to the assessing social workers, this may not have been in Ayman’s benefit - we do not know what Ayman’s status is within the UK and what is his experiences of professionals. Therefore, he may have chosen not to be of help to [the applicant].”
30. Finally, at paragraph 8.21, the ISW report concluded ‘We have considered how much weighting should be afforded to any social media evidence and we do not believe that a high level of weighting can be afforded to this when the other information is considered. Research highlights the unreliability of content posted by users on social media including that 22% of eight- to seventeen-year-olds claim to be 18 on social media (BBC:2024)”.
31. The applicant gave live evidence. Ms Angela Pryle also gave evidence on the applicant’s behalf. I have taken into account the aforementioned evidence as well as all the other material relied upon by the applicant.
The Respondent’s case
32. The respondent relies upon the outcome of a full Merton compliant age assessment carried out on 14, 19 and 29 September 2023 and 02 April 2024 which was communicated to the applicant on or about 13 May 2024.
33. The respondent’s age assessment took into account the observations and opinions of three professionals who had worked with the applicant, Ms Busola Giwa, the applicant’s Independent Reviewing Officer (‘IRO’), Prince, the applicant’s placement key worker, and Ms Norah Miburro, the applicant’s social worker.
34. The conclusion of the age assessment was that the assessors believed the applicant to be over the age of 18, and more likely to be in the age bracket 21-24. The age of 24 was selected in line with the applicant’s Instagram profile which has a registered date of birth of 01 January 2000.
35. The respondent’s report observes that there is considerable evidence in the opinion of social care professionals that the applicant looks and behaves like an adult, both in ‘formal’ settings and in his placement when he was accommodated by the respondent. Additionally, the respondent’s position is that there are significant issues with the credibility of the applicant which relate to his social media presence and his account that photos that look like him are in fact of Ayman.
36. No witnesses were called on the respondent’s behalf. I have also taken into consideration all the other material relied upon by the respondent.
The Legal Framework
37. In terms of the law, the parties are in agreement. As a result, I do not set it out in full, but I do recall a number of key principles. First, I have to decide the applicant’s age as a question of fact, specifically in terms of his date of birth. I should not choose between the alternatives put forward by the parties but must decide the age for myself: N v Croydon LBC [2011] EWHC 862.
38. The nature of the Tribunal’s inquiry under the Children Act 1989 is inquisitorial: R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWA Civ 1590 [§ 21]. There is no burden of proof, but I must decide matters on the balance of probabilities. There is no margin of discretion to the respondent’s own view, rather that assessment is evidence to be considered with all other evidence adduced.
39. Where the applicant does not produce any reliable corroborative documentary evidence of his date of birth or age, my starting point is the applicant’s own credibility and how the applicant knew his date of birth: See R (AE) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 547.
40. In R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689, it was stated by Stanley Burnton J at [20] “In such a case as the present, the applicant does not produce any reliable documentary evidence of his date of birth or age. In such circumstances, the determination of the age of the applicant will depend on the history he gives on his physical appearance and on his behaviour.”
41. He stated at [27] “Given the impossibility of any decision-maker being able to make an objectively verifiable determination of the age of an applicant who may be in the age range of, say 16-20, it is necessary to take a history from him or her to determine whether it is true. A history that is accepted as true and is consistent with an age below 18 will enable the decision-maker in such a case to decide that the applicant is a child. Conversely, however, an untrue history, while relevant, is not necessarily indicative of a lie as to the age of the applicant. Lies may be told for reasons unconnected with the applicant’s case as to his age, for example, to avoid his return to his country of origin. Furthermore, physical appearance and behaviour cannot be isolated from the question of the veracity of the applicant; appearance, behaviour and the credibility of his account are all matters that reflect on each other.”
42. He further stated at [37] “It is apparent from the foregoing that, except in clear cases, the decision-maker cannot determine age solely on the basis of the appearance of the applicant. In general, the decision-maker must seek to elicit the general background of the applicant, including his family circumstances and history, his educational background, and his activities during the previous few years. Ethnic and cultural information may also be important. If there is a reason to doubt the applicant’s statement as to his age, the decision-maker will have to make an assessment of his credibility, and he will have to ask questions designed to test his credibility.”
The hearing
43. I did not hear oral evidence from the age assessors. It was agreed that they would not provide oral evidence, in pre-hearing directions. On 09 June 2025, the applicant gave evidence with the assistance of a Sudanese-Arabic speaking interpreter. Ms Angela Pyle also gave evidence on the applicant’s behalf on the second day of the hearing. Thereafter, both counsel provided detailed submissions, relying on their respective skeleton arguments. In addition, Ms Davies produced a speaking note to support her closing submissions.
Witness evidence of those attending the hearing
The applicant’s live evidence
44. When giving evidence before me the applicant had the assistance of an interpreter in Sudanese-Arabic. I checked to ensure they could understand each other, and was advised there were no difficulties in interpretation.
45. The applicant has provided two witness statements which he adopted. The first is dated 09 August 2024 and covers his background and journey from Sudan to the UK and his comments on the respondent’s assessment. His second witness statement is dated 28 August 2024 and covers social media, his relationship with Ayman, travel to Scotland and comments on the witness statement of Faith Banton.
46. Cross-examination of the applicant took up the majority of the first day of the fact-finding hearing. During that time, the applicant was frequently upset, and breaks were taken for him to compose himself. He was also observed to become clearly frustrated at the questions.
47. The applicant was questioned on several topics: (i) interpretation (ii) birth certificate (iii) his journey from Sudan (iv) foster care, and (v) social media and relationships.
Interpretation
48. The applicant had stated in his first witness statement that he had concerns about the absence of Sudanese-Arabic interpreters being used during the age assessments interview held by the respondent on 14, 19 & 29 September 2023 and 02 April 2024. He said in the course of the first three interviews, he did not fully understand the interpreter because they did not speak Sudanese Arabic dialect. He raised the matter only after the three interviews and had a different interpreter for the fourth and final interview held on 02 April 2024.
49. During questioning the applicant was taken to the respondent’s document (at page 149 of bundle) titled ‘Pro Forma for Age Assessment – compliant with the Merton Judgement’. He confirmed that it was his signature in a box on the form dated 14/9/2023 which declared ‘I confirm I understand the purpose of the assessment, that I am feeling well and that I understand the interpreter’.
50. Ms Davies also referred to two other boxes under his signature on the document. One was signed by the attending Interpreter, Nawal Al-Asadi. She had signed a declaration that stated, ‘The applicant has confirmed understanding, that they are feeling well and the reasons for the assessment have been explained to them by the Social Work Assessors, and through my translation.’
51. The third and final box on the document was signed by the ‘Appropriate Adult’ and dated 14 September 2023. The declaration stated, ‘I confirm the person being assessed confirmed they understand the interpreter, the purpose of the assessment has been explained, the person has signed the Pro Forma, and the person has confirmed they are fit and well to undertake the assessment.’
52. In response to the question whether he had understood the declaration he signed on 14 September 2023 and had made no complaint about not understanding the interpreter, the applicant stated that he was confused and did not understand the interpreter correctly. He stated that he had not complained at any of the interviews because he did not know he could do so.
53. The applicant said it was clear to those attending the meetings that he did not understand the interpreters. He said they (mentioning Nawal and Jabir) made a lot of mistakes as they didn’t understand the Sudanese dialect. For example, the interpreter stated that his family all lived together in one tent which was wrong.
54. The applicant was asked about whether the appropriate adult raised any concerns. He said the appropriate adult said nothing and only asked about breaks.
55. The applicant was asked if he remembered attending a meeting on 29 September 2023 with his social worker, Ms Norah Mibuuro. This followed the age assessment interview on the same date. At that meeting ‘Nawal’ had interpreted and Ms Mibuuro recorded that the applicant had stated that the age assessment interview had gone well. She also recorded that the applicant had raised no concerns or complaints.
56. The applicant replied that he did not remember the meeting with Ms Miburro, nor any interviews where ‘Nawal’ had interpreted. He only remembered ‘Jabir’ but he accepted that other interpreters were also used in the interviews. It was put to him that if there was an issue with the interpretation at the meeting he would have remembered. He replied there were problems, but he could not recall the dates.
Birth Certificate
57. The applicant was taken to the age assessment notes (page 333-334 of the bundle) dated 14 September 2023. He was referred to the answer he gave to the age assessors about when he had seen a picture on his birth certificate. The exchange is reproduced as follows:
How do you know your date of birth?
My mum told me about my dob, I have a bc but is in Sudan and I cannot contact my mum to ask her to provide that.
Have you seen it?
Yes
Can you describe it to me?
Normal A4 paper, not too big not too small I don’t know how to describe it?
Did it have your picture on it?
Yes
How old were you when you got this bc?
Since I was born, but my mum showed it to me when I was nearly 10 years old
You said your picture is on the bc?
Yes
How old were you on the picture?
I am not sure
More or less?
I don’t remember
Were you a baby, a small child?
Don’t remember, sorry
Why did your mum showed your bc?
Because I left school when I was 10 yo and that’s why my mum showed.
Was there any specific reason?
Just happened by accident, she was going through paper
58. It was put to the applicant that he had been asked twice about the picture on his birth certificate and did he agree that the questions and answers matched up? The applicant replied that there was no picture of him on his birth certificate. The picture he had referred to was on his refugee camp card. It was put to him that there was no reference or question recorded in the notes about a refugee camp card.
59. The applicant stated that he did mention the refugee camp card. He claimed he had been bombarded with questions and was confused. He was asked if he had requested the age assessors to slow down their questions to which he replied that he did not know that he could do so. He was also asked if the appropriate adult had asked the age assessors to slow down. He replied that the appropriate adult would only ask him if he wanted a break when he saw him stressed. He confirmed that the age assessors asked him about his birth certificate and refugee camp card.
Departure from Sudan
60. The applicant was taken to the document (at page 464 of the bundle) completed by his social worker, Ms Mibuuro. It was pointed out that this was his account and was written in the first person. Under the heading ‘Social History’ he was asked if he remembered telling his social worker that on his first attempt to leave Libya he was put in Ain-Zara prison and ‘broke the prison and escaped.’
61. The applicant replied that there was no escape from prison. He did not say that to Norah. He did tell Norah about being in prison and that the Sudanese Embassy people came and arranged his release. The alternative would have been to pay money to leave. He accepted that he did have a conversation with Norah about how he came to the UK. She was like a mother to him, and they got on well. During their conversation Jabir was the interpreter.
62. It was put to the applicant that he had given a clear timeline of places and dates relating to his journey to the UK but provided no details about important events in his life before he left for the UK. When asked by the age assessors how long after the [Janjaweed] attack, he had left the country, he replied ‘I can’t tell you because maybe after you are ging to tell me I said so and so and I am not sure.’
63. The applicant confirmed that he was worried about sharing information as sometimes he did not know the dates. He further confirmed that he left Sudan with ‘Ahmed’ and that it was a relative (cousin) who had given him money when he left Sudan. He was no longer in contact with Ahmed.
64. He stated that when he arrived in Lampedusa that adults were sent to the mainland on the same day and children to Milan five days later. He confirmed he was treated as a minor.
Foster Care
65. The applicant was again taken to the document completed by Ms Mibuuro (at page 465 of the case bundle). The content mentioned that the applicant was not happy in the foster home and that his foster carers had told Ms Mibuuro that he found it difficult to follow the rules and boundaries, and that he smoked regularly in his bedroom. The content also mentioned that both the applicant and the foster carers wanted the placement to end.
66. The applicant responded to the question that the placement had ended because he had broken the house rules by stating ‘I know you would be saying that – I didn’t break no house rules. He accepted that he was smoking but denied it was in the house.
67. The applicant was asked if it was fair to say that he found it easier to live in a place with fewer rules. He replied that his social worker knew he was not treated properly by the foster carers and had been subject to discrimination. He had told her that he wanted to move. He did not know what the foster carers wanted but they had made the situation bigger.
68. When asked if he found it easier to live in place with fewer rules, he replied that in the beginning he did not know how to use the washing machine or to cook. It was put to him that he was able to manage the money. He replied that it was not enough.
69. Regarding travel, he said the staff had to accompany him to football. However, he was able to travel to the mosque alone because it was very close, about 7 minutes away. It was put to him that he was able to travel to Scotland on his own without any difficulty. He replied that a friend had bought the ticket for him and had explained the journey.
Social media and relationships
70. The applicant confirmed that he used Snapchat, WhatsApp and Tiktok on a daily basis but did not post photographs. He also followed the accounts of others who played football, but no one followed him. He confirmed that he followed ‘Daniel’ (Alfred) and was in contact with him on social media.
71. In relation to ‘Ahmed’ he was not in contact with him on social media. His last contact with him was when he (the applicant) was in Libya.
72. In relation to ‘Ayman’ the applicant said he was not in contact with him. He explained that when they last met at London Bridge, he told him about his situation, but Ayman was drunk and was not interested in helping him.
73. The applicant said at that time Ayman had a smartphone and he was able to access social media. The applicant said that Ayman gave him his account and when they used to play football together in Woolwich, Ayman would use his account on the applicant’s smartphone. He further stated that during the assessment meetings he gave the assessors Ayman’s mobile number and also tried to call him in their presence but there was no response.
74. The applicant was asked about when he started to use various social media. He stated that he started to use Instagram and Snapchat in the UK and TikTok and Facebook while in Libya. He was not using any social media, nor any type of phone in 2020.
75. The applicant was taken to picture 2 (at page 468 of the bundle). It was put to the applicant that he told the age assessors (second paragraph at page 470) that the picture (posted on 15 April 2020) was actually posted by Ayman and not him. He also said that the picture was of Ayman and that they both looked similar.
76. The applicant was asked if he was now saying that the picture was of him and not of Ayman. He replied that the Instagram account had a lot of pictures of Ayman but that he had deleted them all leaving only his picture.
77. The applicant was asked if the birth date of 01 January 2000 stated on the Instagram account was his date of birth. He responded, ‘How can I be born on this date?’
78. The applicant denied that he had an Instagram account on that date or that he had told the age assessors that he and Ayman looked similar. He did not respond to the assertion that having told the age assessors that he and Ayman looked similar that he went on to say, ‘We are from the same tribe.’ He said that picture 2 had been taken by his brother and passed to Ayman who posted it on his (Ayman’s) account.
79. The applicant was asked if he remembered telling the age assessors that picture 6 (on page 471 of the bundle) was a photograph of Ayman and his younger brothers. The applicant said he did not remember saying that. The picture was of him, not Ayman. He was asked why was the picture on his TikTok account. The applicant replied that Ayman had taken the picture from Instagram and sent it to him on Facebook and he then posted it on his TikTok account in August 2021.
80. The applicant confirmed that five photographs posted on the following dates were all of him:
20 September 2022 (page 596 of the bundle)
09 January 2022 (page 597 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 599 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 602 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 604 of the bundle)
81. It was put to the applicant that all the photos had been posted on his Instagram account before he said he had an Instagram account. The applicant replied that the account belonged to Ayman and the photographs were posted by him.
82. The applicant confirmed that he had a device to take pictures in 2021 when he was in Libya and had sent the pictures to Ayman who was in the UK. He met Ayman when he arrived in the UK in 2023 but sent him pictures in 2022 when he was still outside the UK. Ayman was his elder brother’s friend, and he knew him from Sudan. Ayman was like an older brother to him.
83. It was put to the applicant that he had told the age assessors that Ayman had been in the UK for about four years, which meant that at the time of his age assessment in 2023, Ayman would have been in the UK since around 2019. The applicant said he did not know but Ayman was not in Libya when he was there. However, he knew that Ayman was in the UK when he arrived in early 2023. He met him by coincidence at a mosque in Woolwich.
84. It was put to the applicant that it was surprising that as he regarded him as an elder brother and he knew that he was in the UK that he did not arrange to meet with Ayman. The applicant replied, ‘What do you mean?’
85. It was further put to the applicant that as he and Ayman both had a social media presence it was surprising there was no picture of the two of them together. The applicant replied that when he arrived, he did not have any clothes and was only given £30 by his social worker which was not enough.
86. The applicant said in addition to meeting at the mosque he and Ayman used to play football in Woolwich. Although he used to take his phone with him to football, he did not think of taking a photograph of them together as he was just happy.
87. The applicant said that he could not remember on what date he lost contact with Ayman. He agreed that on 29 September 2023 he had told the age assessors that he would get a photograph with Ayman and send it to them. It was sometime after this date that he lost contact with Ayman.
88. The applicant was referred to his undated handwritten note translated from Arabic to English and admitted into evidence on 09 June 2025. He confirmed that the note was written for his solicitor and should have read ‘The matter that confused me in the age assessment sessions…. ‘. The reference to ‘you’ in the first line was incorrect.
89. The applicant confirmed that pictures 2 & 3 (on pages 468/469 of the bundle) were of him and that picture 5 (on page 471) was his elder brother with a neighbour’s grandmother. Picture 6 (on page 471) was also of him with his cousins Musa and Khalid.
90. The applicant accepted that it would have been helpful for Ayman to have given evidence but said he had become an alcoholic.
91. The applicant confirmed when he made his two witness statements that he told the truth. He was taken to paragraph 8 of his second witness statement. There he had stated that picture 2 was ‘Ayman’ and that they looked like each other. He was next taken to pictures 5 & 6. There he had stated, respectively, that it was Ayman’s brother and grandmother, and Ayman and his siblings. The applicant responded that he did not say it was Ayman in picture 2, nor in pictures 5 & 6. His evidence was that picture 2 was of himself; picture 5 was of his elder brother and a neighbour’s grandmother and picture 6 was of himself and his cousins, Musa and Khalid.
92. When asked if he could explain the change in his evidence regarding the photographs, the applicant stated that he did not understand the contents of the witness statement when he signed it.
93. In re-examination the applicant was asked how he felt when he was asked questions about his journey to the UK. He said he felt like a criminal. When he tried to recall the events, it brought back nightmares. Since the morning, he did not have an appetite and felt like he was suffocating. He did not have much memory of the evidence from the morning. He was like any normal person, and it was normal to forget.
94. In light of the applicant’s new evidence given in re-examination, the respondent asked the applicant if he had gone back and asked his social worker for a referral to see a doctor about his mental health as he had been offered this service in 2023 and had declined. The applicant said he had received some counselling while living in Croydon, but this stopped after he moved placement.
Evidence of Ms Angela Pryle
95. Ms Pryle provided one witness statement dated 27 August 2024 which she adopted. Her background prior to retirement was a teacher. She had taught in London schools for approximately 40 years in primary, secondary and special schools.
96. During cross-examination, Ms Pryle explained that the applicant was her first mentee, and she helped him with his Maths and English. She stated that his English on arrival was very poor, but he had made good progress. He was a bright teenager with a reasonable intellect and emotional problems but learnt quickly.
97. Ms Pryle mentioned that the applicant enjoyed listening to her read fables. On one occasion after she had finished reading, he asked her if the fable was true. She thought this was a ‘childish thing to do’ which demonstrated to her that he was a young person and not an adult.
98. Ms Pryle stated that she never doubted the applicant was 16 years old when she first met him as he acted like a young teenager, often crying for various reasons, including missing his mother, loneliness, and fear for the future. She did not consider that he may have presented as younger because he was studying in key areas below his age expectation.
99. Ms Pryle confirmed that she had been mentoring the applicant for approximately 18 months for two to three hours each week. She estimated that she had spent about 250-300 hours with him during that time.
Other Key Evidence
Norah Miburro
100. Ms Mibuuro was the applicant’s former social worker from Southwark Children’s Services. She completed the document titled ‘Observation form to be completed by allocated social worker ‘dated 04 May 2023 (at page 464 of the bundle). The form was completed after she had met the applicant on four occasions having first met him on 27 February 2023.
101. In terms of the applicant’s ‘physical appearance and demeanour,’ she observed that he was of medium build with well-developed muscles. In this regard, the applicant explained to her that he used to fetch water in Sudan and had been going to gym and playing football three times a week. Ms Mibuuro further observed that the applicant’s Adam’s apple could be seen but was not well developed and that he had no facial lines or facial hair.
102. In respect of his independent/self-care skills, Ms Mibuuro observed that he had good self-care skills although he needed to be prompted to keep his bedroom tidy. He was very good at cooking the food he knew how to cook and was being supported to learn to cook different dishes. He was able to travel independently on the bus once shown the route. She concluded that the age bracket best suited to the applicant was between 15-18 years old and regarded a 16-23 service as being appropriate for him.
‘Prince’ (Keyworker)
103. Prince was the applicant’s key worker at his placement. In his Observation Form dated 3 May 2023, he stated that he had spent ‘quality time’ with the applicant whom he described as having an ‘athletic build’ with a small Adam’s apple and a deep voice. He observed the applicant’s level of independence was ‘functional’ and that the applicant could cook, move round locally, do his own laundry, and maintain personal hygiene. Prince concluded that the age most suited to the applicant was 16.
Busola Giwa (IRO)
104. Busola Giwa was the applicant’s Independent Review Officer (IRO) employed by Southwark Children’s Social Care. She stated in her Observation Form dated 21 July 2023 that she had met the applicant once only face to face and virtually on two occasions. She stated that she is a Black African woman with access to African children both professionally and in her private life. She stated that the applicant’s muscle development was that of an African adult male and that he was no longer growing, his physical features having been formed. Further, that voice was broken and that he talked like an adult.
105. Ms Giwa stated that the applicant’s physical appearance when compared to other black African children was advanced and that although the applicant maintained that he is a child his thought processes, body language and communication is controlled and presented in a way that a child would not likely to be able to do. In this regard, Ms Giwa said that his demands and expectations were not consistent with that of a child and that in conversation he was not relaxed and was constantly second guessing what would be the next question. She concluded that his reactions were calculated and did not let go as a child would do.
106. Ms Giwa stated that the applicant was matured in his views and outlook in a way that adults functioned. Additionally, he was reported to be independent in all areas of his life, including budgeting, cooking, and cleaning with his only reservation being that he wanted more money.
107. Ms Giwa also mentioned that the applicant struggled with boundaries and guidance during foster care as he wanted to do things his way and could not accept being treated as a child. He was then moved to a semi-independent placement where he settled due to less rules.
108. Ms Giwa concluded that the age bracket most suited to the applicant was between 19-23 years old, observing that he was at least 23 years old or an immature 19-year-old.
Erinc Argun Kayim
109. Ms Kayim provided two witness statements dated 09 August 2024 and 12 August 2024 respectively on behalf of the applicant in her role working as a Children’s Advisor in the Age Dispute Project at the Refugee Council.
110. Although Ms Kayim worked to support age disputed children and young people she was not trained in, nor conducts, age assessments. At the time of her first statement, she had been working with the applicant for three months since May 2024 and had met with him in person on one occasion and seen him remotely in video calls on a weekly basis. In total, Ms Kayim considered her interaction amounted to several hours.
111. Ms Kayim stated that the applicant had been very upset by the negative outcome of the respondent’s age assessment. She observed him crying and being anxious about having to move into an adult placement. Her evidence was that the applicant’s behaviour and responses were very much in line with how young people in his age group behaved and that he acted in accordance with his claimed age of 17.
112. Her conclusion was that the applicant had never given her any indication that he could be older than his claimed age of 17 at the time of writing her first statement and that his presentation was also consistent with his claimed age.
Alex Pang
113. Mr Pang provided a witness statement dated 09 August 2024 in support of the applicant’s challenge to the respondent’s age assessment. He is a Mentoring Co-ordinator with Hope for the Young which offers one to one tailored mentoring support to enable young refugees to settle into their communities and pursue their goals.
114. Mr Pang first met the applicant virtually in October and November 2023. He has continued contact with the applicant mainly through text and phone. Mr Pang did not claim to have any age assessment expertise but stated that his prior occupation as a secondary school teacher provided him with experience and an understanding of young people and their behaviours. In this context, Mr Pang stated that the applicant had informed him of his claimed age of 17 and that he had no reason to believe this was a lie. He further stated that the applicant displayed typical teenage behaviour.
Faith Banton
115. Faith Banton provided a witness statement dated 23 August 2024. She is a qualified social worker employed by the respondent and managed a leaving care team and an age assessment team. She stated that in August 2023 the social care records detailed a missing episode in which the applicant went to Scotland, travelling independently. While he was away, staff at his placement found drugs in his room which appeared to be hashish or a similar substance during an inspection. The applicant denied it was his even though no one else in the placement had access to his room.
116. Of note, Ms Banton observed that the applicant’s actions in going to Scotland suggested a degree of autonomous independence not usually seen in his claimed age given he left his placement and travelled to another country.
Roberto Gouveia
117. Mr Roberto Goveia provided three witness statements dated 06 September 2024, 06 January 2025, and 10 February 2025, respectively. He is a qualified social worker employed by the London Borough of Southwark currently working as a specialist age assessor. He was the lead assessor with Caroline Curtis on the respondent’s age assessment.
118. Mr Gouveia’s first and third witness statements addresses the concerns around interpretation raised by the applicant. Mr Gouveia stated that he personally explained the age assessment process to the applicant at the start of the first meeting. The interpreter ‘Nawal’ and the applicant also spoke to each other to ensure that they understood each other. The applicant also signed the consent form to confirm that he understood the interpreter.
119. Mr Gouveia stated that the same interpreter ‘Nawal’ was used for the interviews held on 14, 19 & 29 September 2024. He did not observe any difficulties from the applicant in understanding the interpreter. An appropriate adult was present throughout the age assessment interviews and the applicant did not raise any concerns about the interpreter or any communication issues with anyone present. There was no request to change the interpreter to a Sudanese Arabic interpreter.
120. In respect of the last interview held on 02 April 2024, Mr Gouveia stated that a different interpreter was used (Jabir) purely because the interpreting service provided a different interpreter.
121. Mr Gouveia confirmed that he is careful to ensure that young people understood the interpreters and given his experience he is alert to any difficulties with the interpreter, for example, if the question and the answer does not correspond. He said if a communication issue arose, he would change the interpreter and re-arrange the interview. He also said that if there was any difficulty with the interpretation, other than the applicant, the interpreter would inform him or the appropriate adult. In this instance no once raised any concerns.
122. In his second witness statement, Mr Gouveia stated that he has completed approximately 50 age assessments since 2018. In respect of the age assessment completed for the applicant, interviews were held on 14, 19, 29 September 2023 & 02 April 2024. A decision meeting was held on 10 May 2024. Mr Gouveia stated that the duration of the first and second interviews was approximately four hours each. The third and fourth interviews (minded to sessions) took approximately two hours each.
123. Mr Gouveia stated that from the outset he was of the view the applicant may have been an adult because the developmental characteristics commonly seen in a young person of his claimed age were not present and his appearance was suggestive of an adult male over 18. He stated that a ‘minded to session’ was carried out to clarify some of the information provided by the applicant and to give him the opportunity to respond. This related to his friend ‘Ayman’ who the applicant said looked like him and they shared social media accounts. The applicant was unable to contact Ayman and did not have a photograph of him.
Caroline Curtis
124. Caroline Curtis provided one witness statement dated 16 January 2025. She is employed by the London Borough of Southwark as a senior social worker. She has extensive experience of working with and age assessing children and young people across the age spectrum and from a diverse range of backgrounds. She has completed approximately seven age assessments since 2019 as a lead age assessor and approximately 10 age assessments in the same period as a second assessor.
125. Ms Curtis confirmed that the respondent’s age assessment was conducted over four appointments and that an appropriate adult was present throughout as stated by Mr Gouveia in his second witness statement dated 06 January 2025. She said that she approached every assessment with an open objective mindset which allowed her to gather and analyse information in a holistic way.
126. Ms Curtis stated that while physical appearance cannot be a determinative factor and that it is important to approach the assessment task in an inquiring mind, it was her view from the outset that the applicant may have been an adult as the developmental characteristics commonly seen in a young person of his claimed age were not present and his appearance was suggestive of an adult over 18.
127. Ms Curtis explained that decisions made in relation to an assessed age must be by agreement of both assessors. The professional standard within such decision making should be that if there is a difference in views regarding possible age, the benefit of the doubt principle should be adopted in favour of the young person. This essentially involved one assessor accommodating a view that they may not wholly share but which both assessors are confident about and could defend if necessary.
Tamzin Brown
128. Tamzin Brown provided one witness statement dated 22 January 2025 in support of the applicant’s challenge to the respondent’s age assessment. Ms Brown works as an advocate at Corum Voice representing the interests of children in care and young care leavers up to the age of 25.
129. Ms Brown stated that on 04 October 2023, she had a telephone call with the applicant. He told her that the final interview for his age assessment had taken place on 29 September 2023 and that the interpreter who had been used for each appointment (14, 19 & 29 September) spoke Arabic but not specifically Sudanese Arabic. She said he had told the age assessors that he did not understand and had advised the interpreter on multiple occasions that they were not interpreting what he was saying correctly. He confirmed that an appropriate adult was present but was unsure whether they were aware of the issue with interpretation.
130. Ms Brown stated that she informed the applicant’s social worker, Ms Norah Mibuuro on 5 October 2023 and Jonas Agambire, the team manager about the interpretation issue. She also informed a community care solicitor and the Migrant’s Children’s Project advice line to seek their respective advice.
131. Ms Brown said she heard back from Ms Miburro on 11 October 2023. She informed her that she had spoken to the applicant after the last age assessment session and he had advised her that there were no issues.
Discussion and Findings
Interpretation
132. As noted at paragraph 48 of this decision the applicant complained about the absence of a Sudanese Arabic interpreter during the age assessment interviews conducted by the respondent. As a result, he claims he did not fully understand everything being said and that is why there are inconsistencies in his answers. Ms Nawal Al-Asadi was the interpreter for three of the four interviews held on 14, 19 & 29 September 2023. She also interpreted at the additional meeting held on 29 September 2023 with the applicant’s social worker, Ms Norah Mibuuro. Another interpreter, ‘Jabir’ was the interpreter at the last interview held on 02 April 2024.
133. The ADCS Guidance provides (at page 20) that social workers should check thoroughly to ensure that interpreters and the child understand each other during the age assessment.
134. Mr Gouveia, the lead Social worker who conducted the age assessment process on behalf of the respondent confirmed in his witness evidence that he personally explained the age assessment process to the applicant at the start of the first meeting and that the interpreter and the applicant also spoke to each other to ensure that they understood each other.
135. Mr Gouveia further referenced the signed consent form by the applicant which confirmed that he understood the interpreter. An appropriate adult was also present throughout the age assessment interviews. Mr Gouveia stated that the applicant did not raise any concerns about the interpreter or any communication issues with anyone present. There was no request to change the interpreter to a Sudanese Arabic interpreter.
136. Mr Gouveia stated that he was always careful to ensure that young people understood the interpreters and given his experience around such matters, he was always alert to any difficulties with the interpreter, for example, if the question and the answer did not correspond. If a communication issue arose, he would change the interpreter and re-arrange the interview. He also said that if there was any difficulty with the interpretation, other than the applicant, the interpreter would inform him or the appropriate adult. In this instance no once raised any concerns.
137. During the applicant’s evidence he was taken by Ms Davies to the respondent’s document (at page 149 of bundle) titled ‘Pro Forma for Age Assessment – compliant with the Merton Judgement’. The applicant confirmed that it was his signature in a box on the form dated 14/09/2023 which declared ‘I confirm I understand the purpose of the assessment, that I am feeling well and that I understand the interpreter’.
138. Ms Davies also referred to two other boxes under his signature on the document. One was signed by the attending Interpreter, Nawal Al-Asadi. She had signed a declaration that stated, ‘The applicant has confirmed understanding, that they are feeling well and the reasons for the assessment have been explained to them by the Social Work Assessors, and through my translation.’
139. The third and final box on the document was signed by the ‘Appropriate Adult’ and dated 14/09/2023. The declaration stated, ‘I confirm the person being assessed confirmed they understand the interpreter, the purpose of the assessment has been explained, the person has signed the Pro Forma, and the person has confirmed they are fit and well to undertake the assessment.’
140. In response to the question whether the applicant had understood the declaration he signed on 14 September 2023 about understanding the interpreter, the applicant stated in evidence that he was confused and did not understand her correctly. He confirmed he had not complained at any of the interviews because he did not know he could do so.
141. The applicant said it was clear to those attending the interviews that he did not understand the interpreters. He said they (mentioning Nawal and Jabir) made a lot of mistakes as they did not understand the Sudanese Arabic dialect.
142. The applicant was asked about whether the appropriate adult raised any concerns. He said the appropriate adult said nothing and only asked about breaks.
143. The applicant was asked if he remembered attending a meeting on 29 September 2023 with his social worker, Norah Mibuurro. This followed the age assessment interview on the same date. At that meeting ‘Nawal’ had interpreted and Ms Mibuuro recorded that the applicant had stated that the age assessment interviews had gone well. She also recorded that the applicant had raised no concerns or complaints.
144. The applicant replied that he did not remember the meeting with Ms Miburro, nor any interviews where ‘Nawal’ had interpreted. He only remembered ‘Jabir’ but he accepted that other interpreters were also used in the interviews. It was put to him that if there was an issue with the interpretation at the meeting he would have remembered. He replied there were problems, but he could not recall the dates.
145. I have considered the applicant’s assertion that he did not understand the interpreters during the respondent’s age assessment process. I do not accept his complaints to be credible for the reasons I set out below.
146. First, the age assessment interviews attended by the applicant lasted several hours in total. The applicant said it was ‘clear’ to those attending that he did not understand the interpreters. However, no one raised any concern, including the appropriate adult. Mr Gouveia, whose evidence I accept on this matter, is an experienced age assessor. He was alert to any problems with the interpreter and stated that it would have been obvious if the ‘flow’ of the questions and answers was disrupted in any way. This did not happen.
147. It is notable that the applicant did not raise any concerns about the interpreters until after three interview meetings had been concluded by which time several inconsistences had been revealed in his evidence. If the applicant were genuinely concerned about the quality of the interpretation provided at each interview it is not credible that he would have signed the consent form and waited until after the conclusion of three interviews. In support of this view, the ISW’s report states at paragraph 8.7. ‘In our interactions with [the applicant] he presented as a confident young person who is firmly able to voice his wishes and his feelings, he seems unlikely to be going along with the professionals if disputing his age…..’ This observation shows clearly that the applicant would not have sat back silently for hours if he genuinely believed that there was a problem with the interpretation.
148. Secondly, the applicant’s explanation that he was unaware that he could raise his concerns during the interview process rings hollow given the signed declaration and the fact that he felt able to raise his concerns on 4 October 2023 with Tamzin Brown, a person that he hardly knew at all. If he were able to do so with Ms Brown, there is no reason why he could not have raised his concerns with the age assessors or the appropriate adult who were present throughout. The declaration that he signed specifically stated he understood the interpreter.
149. Furthermore, his complaint to Tamzin Brown is inconsistent with what he told his own social worker on 29 September 2023, namely, that everything had gone well. He has not denied telling his social worker what she has reported.
150. Accordingly, for all the reasons mentioned, I reject the applicant’s complaints that the interpretation has affected the quality of his answers during the respondent’s age assessment process. I find there is no substance to his complaint.
Applicant’s Credibility
151. Although I have considered the evidence holistically, I must start somewhere, and the best place is the applicant’s account of how and when he claimed to know his birthdate.
152. The applicant stated in his age assessment interviews that his mother told him about his date of birth. He said that she showed him an A4 size of paper when he was about ten years old. She did so because he had just left school. He stated to the respondent age assessors that the paper had his picture on it although he could not say what age he was in the picture. It is notable that he made no reference to a picture on his birth certificate or a refugee card when interviewed by the ISW assessors.
153. During his evidence, the applicant explained that it was not his birth certificate that had his photograph on it but rather his refugee card from the camp where he lived previously. He was asked why there was no reference in the interview notes to a refugee card. The applicant said he was confused, and the respondent’s age assessors had bombarded him with questions and were speaking quickly. He accepted that he did not ask them to slow down.
154. The interview notes clearly show that on two occasions he said that his picture was on his birth certificate. Although he claims to have been confused, he did not raise it at the time with anyone. He did not raise it with the ISW assessors. I do not accept that he was confused. Nowhere in the contemporaneous interview notes does he mention a refugee card. It is clear that he has changed his account without providing any reasonable explanation.
155. In light of the foregoing, I find the applicant’s assertion that his photograph was on a refugee card as opposed to his birth certificate to lack credibility. The whole episode brings into sharp focus whether the applicant’s account that he saw his birth certificate in the first place is truthful. In light of my finding about the picture, I put little weight on the applicant’s account that his mother showed him his birth certificate.
156. The applicant was also questioned by Ms Davies about the account he gave to his social worker, Norah Mibuuro about breaking out of the prison in Libya and escaping which she recorded in the Observation notes (page 464 of the bundle). He confirmed in evidence that he did speak to her about his time in prison but did not say that he broke out and escaped. What he told her was that people from the Sudan Embassy came and arranged his release.
157. I have considered the evidence. The applicant has not challenged the accuracy of any other part of the observation notes recorded by Ms Mibuuro on 04 May 2023 which is written in the first person. I find that it is more likely than not that the account provided by Ms Mibuuro has been recorded accurately. The applicant has advanced no reason why she would have recorded the other details correctly but simply got it wrong when writing about him breaking out of prison and escaping. I do not accept his assertion that the recorded account by Ms Mibuuro is inaccurate. I find the applicant’s attempt to change his account while not directly bearing on the question of his age nonetheless affects his credibility.
158. Another area of contention which affects the applicant’s credibility is his social media regarding his Instagram profile which has two accounts and his relationship with another male called ‘Ayman.’
159. When the applicant was asked why he had an Instagram profile with two accounts (one of them with a name in Arabic ‘styfnkrnqs’ and a second one called ‘hmwdykrnqs’) on his phone, he stated that Ayman had created the first account for himself. He then created the second account for the applicant as the applicant was unable to do it for himself.
160. The applicant’s Instagram profile has a registered date of birth of 01 January 2000. In relation to a Snapchat opened in the UK it was observed that the applicant had used his claimed date of birth of 19 February 2007.
161. The applicant said in evidence that he did not have any social media in Sudan in 2020 and only had access to a smartphone and the internet when he was in Libya in March 2021. He claims that he did not have an Instagram account until he came to the UK in 2023.
162. A photograph of the applicant was posted on one of the Instagram accounts on 15 April 2020 when the applicant says that he was in Sudan without any social media. His explanation was that he took the picture, and Ayman posted it to his own account which he then gave to the applicant to use. The applicant initially told the respondent’s age assessors that picture 2 was himself but later changed his response to say that it was actually ‘Ayman’ and that they looked similar.
163. The applicant confirmed that he told the truth when he made his two witness statements on 09 August 2024 and 28 August 2024. He was taken to paragraph 8 of his second witness statement. There he had stated that picture 2 was ‘Ayman’ and that they looked like each other. He was next taken to pictures 5 & 6. There he had stated, respectively, that it was Ayman’s brother and grandmother, and Ayman and his siblings. The applicant responded that he did not say it was Ayman in picture 2, nor in pictures 5 & 6. His evidence was that picture 2 was of himself; picture 5 was of his elder brother and a neighbour’s grandmother and picture 6 was of himself and his cousins, Musa and Khalid. He said his witness evidence was wrong.
164. The applicant confirmed that five photographs posted on the following dates were all of him:
20 September 2022 (page 596 of the bundle)
09 January 2022 (page 597 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 599 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 602 of the bundle)
14 November 2022 (page 604 of the bundle)
165. It was put to the applicant that all the photos had been posted on his Instagram account before he said he had an Instagram account. The applicant replied that the account belonged to Ayman and the photographs were posted by him.
166. Regarding his relationship with ‘Ayman,’ the applicant said he was not in contact with him. Ayman was his elder brother’s friend, and he knew him from Sudan. He was like a brother to the applicant. They were in contact through Facebook when the applicant was in Libya and he knew that Ayman was in the UK but not his location. They met him by coincidence at a Mosque in Woolwich Arsenal after applicant had arrived in London. They last met at London Bridge when the applicant told Ayman about his situation, but Ayman was drunk and was not interested in helping him.
167. The applicant said at that time Ayman had a smartphone and he was able to access social media. He stated that Ayman gave him his Instagram account and when they used to play football together in Woolwich, Ayman would use his account on the applicant’s smartphone. The applicant stated that during the age assessment interviews he gave the respondent’s age assessors Ayman’s mobile number and also tried to call him in their presence but there was no response.
168. The applicant was asked if the date of 01 January 2000 stated on his Instagram profile was his date of birth. He responded, ‘of all the people I‘m the lucky one, just me, how can I be born on this date?’
169. The applicant denied in evidence that he had an Instagram account on 15 April 2020 or that he had told the respondent’s age assessors that he and Ayman looked similar. He did not respond to the assertion that having told the age assessors that he and Ayman looked similar that he went on to say, ‘We are from the same tribe.’ He said that picture 2 had been taken by his brother and passed to Ayman who posted it on his (Ayman’s) account.
170. The applicant was asked if he remembered telling the age assessors that picture 6 (on page 471 of the bundle) was a photograph of Ayman and his younger brothers. The applicant said he did not remember saying that. The picture was of him, not Ayman. He was asked why was the picture on his TikTok account. The applicant replied that Ayman had taken the picture from Instagram and sent it to him on Facebook and he then posted it on his TikTok account in August 2021.
171. The applicant confirmed that he had a device to take pictures in 2021 when he was in Libya and had sent pictures to Ayman who was in the UK. Although he did not meet Ayman until he arrived in the UK in 2023, he sent him pictures in 2022 when he was still outside the UK.
172. It was put to the applicant that he had told the age assessors that Ayman had been in the UK for about four years, which meant that at the time of his age assessment in 2023, Ayman would have been in the UK since around 2019. The applicant said he did not know, but Ayman was not in Libya when he was there.
173. It was put to the applicant that it was surprising that as he regarded him as an elder brother and he knew that he was in the UK that he did not arrange to meet with Ayman. The applicant replied, ‘What do you mean?’
174. It was further put to the applicant that as he and Ayman both had a social media presence it was surprising there was no picture of the two of them together. The applicant replied that when he arrived, he did not have any clothes and was only given £30 by his social worker which was not enough.
175. The applicant said in addition to meeting at the mosque he and Ayman used to play football in Woolwich. Although he used to take his phone with him to football, he did not think of taking a photograph of them together as he was just happy.
176. The applicant said that he could not remember on what date he lost contact with Ayman. He agreed that on 29 September 2023 he had told the age assessors that he would get a photograph with Ayman and send it to them. It was sometime after this date that he lost contact with Ayman.
177. The applicant was referred to his undated handwritten note (without a statement of truth) translated from Arabic to English and admitted into evidence on 09 June 2025. He confirmed that the note was written for his solicitor and should have read ‘The matter that confused me in the age assessment sessions…. ‘. The reference to ‘you’ in the first line was incorrect.
178. In the applicant’s handwritten note, in relation to the pictures on Ayman’s account, he stated ‘All these pictures are related to my father’s death. I took these pictures in Biala City a few days after my father’s death to issue his death certificate.’ The applicant’s father (as stated at page 491 of the case bundle) died in May 2020. Picture 2 is dated April 2020 which is obviously not a few days after his father’s death and the other pictures are dated in 2022 which is a significant period afterwards. The applicant’s assertion about when the photos were taken is therefore completely wrong and further damages his credibility.
179. The applicant confirmed that pictures 2 & 3 (on pages 468/469 of the bundle) were of him and that picture 5 (on page 471) was his elder brother with a neighbour’s grandmother. Picture 6 (on page 471) was also of him with his cousins Musa and Khalid.
180. The applicant accepted that it would have been helpful for Ayman to have given evidence but said he had become an alcoholic.
181. When asked if he could explain the inconsistencies in his evidence regarding the photographs, the applicant stated that he did not understand the contents of the witness statement when he signed it.
182. Having considered the evidence, concerning the applicant’s social media and his relationship with Ayman, it is clear that the applicant has significantly contradicted his previous witness evidence and what he had told the respondent’s age assessors.
183. The applicant initially claimed that picture 2 on the Instagram account was of himself, but then said it was Ayman, explaining that they both looked the same. In his witness evidence, he stated that pictures 2 & 6 were of Ayman but has now stated that they are both of him. There are also other contradictions regarding who took the photos and posted them.
184. In re-examination, the applicant told Mr Persey that he could not recall the evidence as it was a long time ago and he was only human. He felt bombarded by questions and the process. He further stated that he did not understand the content of his witness evidence or the statement of truth that he signed.
185. I find his explanation regarding the inconsistencies in his witness evidence to have no merit because his legal representative was under a professional duty to ensure that he understood the witness statement before signing it. There is also a statement of truth by the interpreter on the witness statement.
186. The applicant claims that he was tired and bombarded by questions but there is nothing recorded by anyone present at the time to suggest this was the case. His explanation does not explain why he could not instantly recognise himself in pictures 2 and 6 when asked by the respondent’s age assessors, and why he then went on to state in sworn witness evidence that pictures 2 & 6 were of Ayman. It is clear that he knew that the picture looked like himself and that is why he went on to say that he and Ayman looked the same to try and cover the fact that picture 2 was obviously himself. This was not confusion but evasion on his part to avoid linking the Instagram account with the date of birth to him.
187. Overall, none of the contradictory evidence can simply be explained away on the basis of not being able to remember, mental health or not understanding the statement of truth. None of those explanations are credible in the circumstances of this case. His witness statements were made within the past 12 months. The applicant confirmed there were no mental health issues or diagnosis relevant to his account, and he refused a CAMHS referral by his social worker in 2023 concerning sleep issues. Furthermore, his professional advisers were required to ensure that he understood his witness evidence before signing it. There is nothing to suggest that his professional legal advisers and/or the interpreter who also made a declaration, were remiss in their professional duties. The clear inference is that the applicant has been evasive and has deliberately sought to change aspects of his evidence in order to bolster his case. I find the inconsistencies are material and that they significantly damage his credibility.
188. As regards Ayman, while his true status in the UK remains unclear, it is surprising there is not a single picture of Ayman or of him and the applicant together. The applicant’s explanation that he was just happy to be with Ayman lacks credibility in light of the applicant’s evidence that Ayman was like a brother to him and that they played football together, attended the mosque and shared social media accounts.
189. Now that the applicant has admitted that pictures 2 & 6 are of himself, looking at the facts holistically, the only reasonable and proper inference to draw is that the Instagram profile and the account with a date of birth of 01 January 2000 belongs to the applicant. The Instagram account is on the applicant’s phone and contains his photos which he now accepts. There is no plausible evidence produced by the applicant to show that Ayman exists.
190. Although the applicant claims that he had no Instagram account or internet access in 2020 while he was in a camp in Sudan, given the multiple inconsistencies in his evidence, I find that his credibility is damaged regarding that assertion and that it is more likely than not that he did have internet access in 2020 while in Sudan.
Other Evidence
Behaviour
191. Several aspects arise in respect of the applicant’s behaviour. These are: (i) foster care (ii) Independence and self-care, and (iii) money.
192. In respect of foster care, the evidence of the applicant’s IRO, Ms Giwa, is instructive. She observed that the applicant struggled with boundaries and guidance during foster care as he wanted to do things his way and could not accept being treated as a child. He was then moved to a semi-independent placement where he settled due to less rules.
193. The evidence is confirmed in the respondent’s care plan prepared by Jonas Agambire. This records that the applicant stated that he was not happy in the foster home. It also records that the foster parents told Mr Agambire that the applicant found it difficult to follow rules and boundaries and that he smoked in his bedroom. Mr Agambire recorded that both the applicant and the foster parents wanted to the placement to end.
194. In terms of the applicant’s independence, his social worker, keyworker, and IRO all noted a strong degree of independence. The applicant’s independence level was viewed as ‘functional.’ He was able to cook, budget, clean and travel independently once shown the route. In this regard, he unilaterally left London and travelled to Scotland by himself. He could also do his laundry and had a good level of personal hygiene. Ms Giwa observed that the applicant’s demands and expectations were not consistent with that of a child and that in conversation he was not relaxed and was constantly second guessing what would be the next question. She concluded that his reactions were calculated, and he did not let go as a child would do.
195. Finally, in relation to money, it was noted in evidence that in response to a question asking why there was no photo of Ayman, the applicant avoided the question and replied that when he arrived he did not have any clothes and was only given £30 by his social worker which was not enough.
196. The above evidence in relation to foster care, functional independence, self-care, and money has not been challenged by the applicant although Ms Giwa’s opinion is disputed.
Appearance and Demeanour
197. It is trite law that physical appearance is not a determining factor and therefore limited weight should be given when assessing age, applying R (on the application of AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 118. That said, appearance is one of the several factors to be taken into account as part of a holistic assessment of the evidence. In this respect, the witness evidence of several professionals is instructive, together with the available photos taken between 2020 and 2024.
198. In terms of appearance, the applicant’s keyworker described the applicant as having an ‘athletic build’ with a small Adam’s apple and a deep voice. His social worker, Ms Mibuuro, also considered the applicant to be of medium build with well-developed muscles. In this regard, the applicant explained to her that he used to fetch water in Sudan and had been going to gym and playing football three times a week. Ms Mibuuro further observed that the applicant’s Adam’s apple could be seen but was not well developed and that he had no facial lines or facial hair.
199. The applicant’s IRO stated that as a Black African woman she has access to African children both professionally and in her private life. She stated that the applicant’s muscle development was that of an African adult male and that he was no longer growing, his physical features having been formed. Further, that voice was broken and that he talked like an adult.
200. Ms Giwa stated that the applicant’s physical appearance when compared to other black African children was advanced and although the applicant maintained that he is a child his thought processes, body language and communication is controlled and presented in a way that a child would not likely to be able to do. In this regard, Ms Giwa said that his demands and expectations were not consistent with that of a child and that in conversation he was not relaxed and was constantly second guessing what would be the next question. She concluded that his reactions were calculated and did not let go as a child would do.
201. The respondent’s report stated that the applicant presented features comparable to a young adult aged 20 or over rather than a 16 year old child and that the assessors struggled to find characteristics comparable to Sudanese children aged 16. The ISW report rightly recalls that physical appearance is not a reliable method of assessing age particularly those within the age bracket of 18-25 years and concluded that the applicant’s physical appearance was more indicative of someone of a younger age than his current documented age.
202. Turning to the photos of the applicant taken between 2020 and 2024 (pages 445 and 595 to 606) the respondent’s assessors stated that they were unable to identify any changes to his physical appearance from August 2021 to his current presentation which was unusual for teenagers going through such a crucial period of development.
Other Witness Evidence
203. Ms Mibuuro was the applicant’s former social worker. She had met him four times before concluding in May 2023 (when he claimed that he was 16 years old) that the age bracket best suited to the applicant was between 15-18 years old and regarded a 16-23 service as being appropriate for him. Although she is experienced in professional age assessment, she has had some interactions with the applicant by the date of her opinion. I therefore place some weight on her opinion.
204. Ms Giwa was the applicant’s IRO. She has had some interactions with the applicant over a period of time. She also has experience of the LAC (Looked After Child Review) and working with African children on which she has based some of her detailed reasoning for concluding that the age bracket most suited to the applicant is between 19-23 years old, observing that he was at least 23 years old or an immature 19-year-old. I therefore place more weight on her opinion than on Ms Mibuuro’s opinion.
205. Mr Pang and Ms Kayum are not social workers and have no age assessment experience. They have had some interactions with the applicant online and face to face. Although both of them have worked with teenagers and have concluded that the applicant’s behaviour is in line with his claimed age, there is little detailed reasoning behind their opinions. I therefore place little weight on their respective opinions.
206. ‘Prince’ was the applicant’s keyworker. He has had interactions with the applicant and concluded that he was 16 years old. However, there is no reasoning behind his opinion. I therefore attach little weight to his opinion.
207. Ms Pryle gave live evidence and said she found no reason to doubt the applicant’s claimed age. She had spent over 250 hours tutoring the applicant. During that time Ms Pryle had no reason to question the applicant’s credibility given her pastoral teaching role. Her good faith is undisputed but that is not enough where specialist expertise in age assessment is lacking, and age assessment is not an exact science. I therefore attach little weight to her opinion.
208. Overall, none of the above-mentioned witnesses had any reason to question the applicant’s credibility or account. They were retained for their specific roles in order to support and provide services to the applicant. That did not require them to delve into and question his claimed age. As such their evidence in my view carries little weight overall when determining the core question of the applicant’s age.
Consideration of the Age Assessment Reports
209. I have carefully reviewed the respective age assessment reports conducted by the respondent and the ISW. No issues have been raised by the parties concerning whether either report is a full Merton-compliant assessment. That was not an issue before the hearing.
210. The key differences between the respective age reports turn on the treatment of the applicant’s social media account and his relationship with Ayman and the chronology of events.
211. In relation to the chronology, the respondent’s report highlighted that when the applicant was asked how many days had passed after the Janjaweed incident had taken place at the camp before his conversation with Ahmed about leaving Sudan, the applicant replied ‘I can’t tell you because maybe after you are going to tell me I said so and so and I am not sure’. The respondent’s age assessors expressed surprise by this response as it demonstrated to them that the applicant was very aware that the information might be considered as part of the assessment and he was prepared to avoid sharing any information that might be perceived as contradictory of inconsistent.
212. It is worth recalling that nature and tone of the applicant’s response mentioned above is supported by the evidence of the IRO. She stated ‘in conversation [the applicant] was not relaxed and was constantly second guessing what would be the next question. His reactions were calculated and did not let go as a child would do.’
213. The applicant had also told his social worker that he travelled to Al Kufra (Libya) with 35 Sudanese young people, but he told the respondent‘s age assessors that he travelled to Libya with only his friend Ahmed, a driver, and his assistant.
214. The applicant did not mention the 35 Sudanese young people to the ISW assessors but maintained the same story of the journey he told to the respondent. These are material inconsistencies in his account of the journey which affects his credibility.
215. Turning to his social media accounts, the respondent’s age assessors considered that the applicant had not been entirely open and honest about his social media presence. The report states that he gave confusing and contradictory information about the social media accounts on his mobile phone as well as the ownership of the accounts which apparently kept switching back and forth with his friend Ayman.
216. The respondent’s report observed that after recognising himself in the photograph posted on the Instagram social media account in April 2020 (picture 2) the applicant changed his story to say it was Ayman and tried to justify the picture by saying that Ayman looked a lot like him when it was clear to the assessors that both pictures 2 & 6 were the applicant. In any event the applicant was unable to prove that Ayman looked like him because there were no pictures of the together and the applicant said he was no longer in contact with him.
217. As a result of the applicant’s responses, the respondent’s report stated that the age assessors main hypothesis was that the applicant may not have expected them to have assessed his Instagram account posts from 2020 as it clearly contradicts his claim that he never had any sort of internet connection until he was in Libya in 2021.
218. The ISW report deals briefly with the applicant’s social media presence at paragraph 6.7.1. It records that the applicant was very clear that the social media account with the date of birth of 01 January 2000 was the profile of his friend Ayman. The report states that due to there being photographs of the applicant’s father on there, the two had swapped this account and Ayman had randomly amended the date of birth. The applicant was clear that this was not a reflection of his date of birth.
219. At paragraph 8.16 of the ISW report it states that it is possible that the dates of birth within his other social media accounts which are supportive of his claimed age could be argued as accurate and the other (Instagram) inaccurate.
220. At paragraph 8.17 the ISW report states ‘[the applicant] has been consistent in the narrative provided to us…. Whilst the situation may be unusual (and we are in agreement with this assessment) we have to recognise that it is not entirely impossible that the two were sharing social media accounts.’
221. At paragraph 8.19, the ISW report states ‘Whilst we may consider that this narrative is implausible, given the [applicant’s] continued insistence we have to consider the benefit of the doubt principle which assumes that someone is telling the truth or acting with good intentions, even when there is lack of certainty or clear supporting evidence. This is considered important in age assessment, as there is no method of conducting the with 100% accuracy detailed within the ADCS guidelines’.
222. At paragraph 8.21 , the ISW assessors state that they do not believe that a high level of weighting can be afforded to the applicant’s social media as research highlights the unreliability of content posted by users on social media including that 22% of eight to seventeen years old claim to be 18 on social media’. They concluded that the evidence of the professionals should be afforded a higher weighting. As a result, the ISW report concluded that the applicant was aged 18-20 years at the date of the report and should be afforded the benefit of the doubt in respect of his claimed age.
223. The respondent’s report concluded that the applicant was in fact an adult over the age of 18 and more likely to be in the age bracket 21-24 with the age of 24 selected in line with his Instagram social media details.
224. In light of the findings of the respective age assessment reports, I must determine what weight to place on them.
225. The ISW’s approach to the age assessment process has been to apply the benefit of the doubt principle to the issues. The ADCS guidance notes that where definitive evidence is not available the benefit of the doubt should be granted to the children and young people presenting as such.
226. In considering the application of the benefit of the doubt principle, the professional standard is that where there are differing views within a range of acceptable or plausible views, age assessors are required to select that which is most favourable to the applicant and which they are able to defend.
227. The obvious flaw with the ISW’s approach is that it is based on an implausible account provided by the applicant in respect of his Instagram social media profile which puts his date of birth as 01 January 2000. In this regard, I agree with the submissions made by Ms Davies in closing that the principle of the benefit of the doubt does not sanction acceptance of an implausible account that falls outside the range. If an incredible account were required nonetheless to be accepted on the basis of the principle, it would be nonsensical to apply the Merton credibility criteria as credibility would not matter.
228. A further obvious weakness in the ISW report, which is not a criticism of the assessors, but simply a fact of the proceedings having evolved is that the applicant disavowed his statement of truth and his witness evidence at the hearing. His witness evidence regarding the persons in pictures 2 & 6 was false. The ISW assessors accepted his account of the persons in pictures 2 & 6 and the implausibility of his evidence regarding his Instagram profile which records a date of birth of 01 January 2000 and then sought to apply the benefit of the doubt principle in his favour.
229. In light of the false information, he has given about pictures 2 & 6, the ISW report and its factual foundation is clearly undermined. I therefore attach little weight to it.
230. In contrast, the respondent’s age assessors rightly perceived that the applicant was trying to mislead the assessment by changing the narrative several times concerning his Instagram social media account. They were right to adopt a cautious approach regarding the applicant’s account concerning his social media presence which has been vindicated. I therefore place significant weight on the respondent’s report.
Conclusions
231. It is instructive to recall following the decision of R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689 at [20] that in cases where the applicant does not produce any reliable documentary evidence of his date of birth or age as in this case, in such circumstances, the determination of age of the applicant will depend on the history he gives, on his physical appearance and on his behaviour.
232. The decision in Merton also held that lies may be told for reasons unconnected with the applicant’s case as to his age, for example to avoid return to the country of origin; further, that physical appearance cannot be isolated from the question of the veracity of the applicant’s appearance, behaviour and the credibility of his account which are all matters that reflect on each other.
233. Accordingly, it is axiomatic that the applicant’s credibility will be central to his claimed age. In this context, at the hearing, the applicant disavowed his witness evidence and statement of truth claiming that he was confused and did not understand what he was signing. I have already stated at paragraphs 185 -187 that I do not accept his explanation for the reasons stated.
234. I find there is a clear pattern that emerges regarding the applicant’s conduct in the age assessment process and proceedings that damages his credibility. Firstly, he claimed there were interpretation problems which seemingly only arose after three interviews had been completed even though no one else present saw any difficulties with flow of the question and answers. There are inconsistencies between his account to his social worker and information given to the respondent and ISW assessors. There are subtle inconsistencies between what the applicant said to the respondent age assessors and to the ISW assessors, for example, he did not mention to the ISW assessors about a picture on his birth certificate but he talked about an ID used in the refugee camp to access food with his date of birth written on it. On the other hand, he said to the ISW assessors that due to photographs of his father being on the social account belonging to ‘Ayman,’ he and Ayman swapped that account and Ayman randomly amended the date of birth on the social media account to 01 January 2000. That was never said to the respondent’s assessors.
235. It is also notable that when the applicant was questioned by the assessors about inconsistencies in his account his behaviour changed. In the ISW report, the assessors noted that when they sought to understand the inconsistencies that were present in the previous age assessment the applicant became frustrated and ‘presented as more stroppy with some sighs and clear annoyance in his tone.’ In the respondent’s report, it noted that there was a clear shift in the applicant’s demeanour and posture whilst discussing some of the inconsistencies in his account.
236. During cross examination, he changed his account about the persons in the pictures on the social media account and disavowed his statement of truth relating to his witness evidence. In re-examination, he said he was frustrated by being asked the same questions and told Mr Persey that he could not remember what he had said in witness evidence, including in the morning, leading to him saying that he did not understand the statement of truth that he had signed.
237. Mr Persey relied on the ADCS guidance and sought to explain the applicant’s behaviour on the basis that he was distraught and found it difficult to recall and engage with events which were traumatic and that the Tribunal should assess his account in this context.
238. In broad terms, I agree with Mr Persey’s submission. In considering the applicant’s account, I am conscious that even on the respondent’s case, he is a young man who may, by virtue of lengthy and difficult journey to the UK, have experienced trauma and distress. However, Mr Persey does not suggest that the applicant has a mental health condition which would impair his evidence but I accept as realistic that the applicant’s experiences in his journey to the UK may result in him being hesitant in his answers and perhaps not as forthcoming in giving his best evidence and that as a consequence I should not necessarily draw adverse inferences from the lack of detail in his answers.
239. That said, there have been multiple inconsistencies in his account throughout the age assessment process which go to well beyond mere detail, but instead to the central issues which damages his credibility. The most objective and persuasive evidence of his date of birth is his original social media account which records a date of birth of 01 January 2000.
240. Assessing the evidence holistically, and accepting that physical appearance and demeanour/behaviour are unreliable indicators of age and not determining factors, and therefore of limited weight, I find that it is more likely than not that the applicant is an adult aged 25 years old with a date of birth of 01 January 2000.
241. Drawing all the evidence and submissions together, I make the following findings:
(a) At the time the applicant arrived in the UK on or around 15 February 2023, he was aged 23 years and one month.
(b) At the time of the respondent’s age assessment decision of 13 May 2024, the applicant was aged 24 years and 4 months.
(c) The applicant is aged 25 years and 5 months at the time of the hearing.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
It is determined that the applicant’s date of birth is 01 January 2000 and that he is aged 25 years and 5 months at the date of the hearing.
Costs
1. The applicant has not been found to be the age he claims and has therefore lost this judicial review.
2. The applicant shall pay the respondent’s reasonable costs of the claim incurred with the sum payable to be determined in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.
Signed K.A. Khan Date 16 July 2025
Upper Tribunal Judge Khan