JR-2025-LON-003411
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
JR-2025-LON-003411
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
MA
Applicant
and
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Mahmood
HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Ms Antonio Benfield of counsel, instructed by Osbornes Solicitors LLP, for the Applicant and Mr Stephen Hocking of counsel, instructed by Hampshire County Council, for the Respondent at a hearing on 2 to 5 June 2026.
AND UPON the parties agreeing that the effect of the Upper Tribunal’s judgment is that the Applicant is a former relevant child and entitled to support accordingly under the Children Act 1989.
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s date of birth is 16 October 2007.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(2) The Applicant’s claim for judicial review is allowed for the reasons in the attached judgment.
(3) The Respondent’s age assessment completed on 7 July 2025 is hereby quashed.
(4) The order for interim relief made on 18 September 2025 is hereby discharged.
(5) The order for anonymity made by the Administrative Court remains in force.
Costs
(6) The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs of the claim, excluding the Applicant’s costs of instructing and/or corresponding with Dr Zadeh including consideration of his reports; and excluding any fees or expenses paid to Dr Zadeh including fees for preparing his reports and for his attendance at the tribunal for cross examination, to be assessed if not agreed.
(7) The Respondent shall make a payment on account of costs in the sum of 60% of the Applicant’s bill of costs within 21 days of receipt of the same.
(8) There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.
Permission to appeal
(9) The Respondent not having sought permission to appeal, and the Upper Tribunal being required to consider permission, permission is refused for the reasons set out in the judgment.
Signed: Abid Mahmood
Upper Tribunal Judge Mahmood
Dated: 4 September 2026
The date on which this order was sent is given below
For completion by the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Sent / Handed to the applicant, respondent and any interested party / the applicant's, respondent’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date): 08/09/2026
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-2025-LON-003411
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
MA
Applicant
- and -
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms Antonia Benfield, Counsel
(instructed by Osbornes Solicitors LLP), for the Applicant
Mr Stephen Hocking, Counsel
(instructed by Legal Services, Hampshire County Council) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 2-5 June 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Direction Regarding Anonymity – Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Applicant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Applicant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Applicant without his express consent. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court. The parties may apply on notice to vary this direction. The direction is being made because the Applicant has made an international protection claim.
Judge Mahmood:
1. This is my decision, following the hearing before me between 2nd and 5th June 2026.
Introduction
2. By way of proceedings issued on 9 September 2025 the Applicant challenges the Respondent’s decision dated 7 July 2025 whereby the Respondent concluded that the Applicant was aged over 18. Whereas the Applicant claims that his date of birth is 16 October 2007 and which would have made him under the age of 18 when he had arrived in the United Kingdom on 5 August 2023.
3. My task is to assess the Applicant’s age. I do so by considering the extensive oral and written evidence which has been presented to me and after considering the detailed oral and written submissions made by both counsel in this case.
Procedural History
4. I have been provided with a substantial number of documents. I am not going to refer to all of the documents and I refer first to the procedural history in respect of the matter at the outset. The documents include a large bundle comprising some 1580 pages plus skeleton arguments from each of the parties, along with written closing submissions from the parties and other evidence.
5. The Applicant had issued his application for permission to apply for judicial review in the Administrative Court. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on all grounds by Hugh Southey KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court on 18 September 2025. The matter was transferred to the Upper Tribunal. Thereafter various orders were made by the Upper Tribunal, including case management orders which led to the hearing before me.
Preliminary Issue
6. The Applicant had made an application prior to the hearing for the admission of written witness evidence from the Applicant’s mother and uncle. The application had been opposed by the Respondent. I provided an ex tempore judgment. The witness statements were admitted but the weight to be attached to them would be limited because the Respondent has not been able to test the evidence by way of cross examination as the witnesses did not attend to provide oral evidence.
The Applicable Legal Principles
7. I refer to the applicable legal principles from outset. It was confirmed that there was no disagreement between the parties about the legal principles.
8. Age assessments are regularly undertaken by local authorities when seeking to determine whether to provide services to individuals under the Children Act 1989.
9. Section 105 of the Children Act 1989 defines as child as a person of less than 18 years of age subject to certain limited cases where the definition is extended pursuant to paragraph 16 of the schedule (which does not apply in this case).
10. Section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 provides:
“(1) It shall be the general duty of every local authority (in addition to the other duties imposed on them by this part)-
(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
(b) so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families,
by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.”
Section 17(10) states:
“(10) For the purposes of this Part a child shall be taken to be in need if:
(a) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority under this Part;
(b) his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services; or
(c) he is disabled,
and ‘family’, in relation to such a child, includes any person who has parental responsibility for the child and any other person with whom he has been living.”
11. Insofar at the legal requirements for age assessments are concerned, there is a well-trodden path in respect of the case law, but the most helpful starting point is the judgment of Stanley Burnton J, as he then was in R (on the application of B) Merton London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 1689; [2003] 4 All ER 280 whereby detailed guidance was provided for local authorities to follow when assessing age.
12. At paragraph 21, His Lordship said:
“21. There is no statutory procedure or guidance issued to local authorities as to how to conduct an assessment of age …
22. The determination of an applicant’s age is rendered difficult by the absence of any reliable anthropometric test: for someone who is close to the age of 18, there is no reliable medical or other scientific test to determine whether he or she is over or under 18.”
His Lordship referred to The Guidelines for Paediatricians issued by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health where it was said:
“Moreover, for young people aged 15-18, it is even less possible to be certain about age. There may also be difficulties in determining whether a young person who might be as old as 23 could, in fact, be under the age of 18. Age determination is an inexact science and the margin of error can sometimes be a much as 5 years either side…Any assessments that are made should also take into account relevant factors from the child’s medical, family and social history.”
His Lordship continued at paragraph 23 onwards to state:
“23. Different people living in the same country, with the same culture and diet, mature physically and psychologically at different rates. …
24. The difficulties are compounded when the young person in question is of an ethnicity, culture, education and background that are foreign, and unfamiliar, to the decision-maker…
28. … It is necessary to take a history from him or her with a view to determining 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…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…
37. … 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 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…
39 … A local authority may take into account information obtained by the Home Office; but it must make its own decision, and for that purpose must have available to it adequate information. …”
13. Merton has thereafter been applied and referred to in numerous other higher court authorities and Upper Tribunal authorities, including in R (on the application of (FZ) v Croydon London Borough Council (also referred to as R (on the application of Z) v Croydon London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 59; [2011] PTSR 748, Sir Anthony May P, giving the judgment on behalf of the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 3:
“In Merton Stanley Burnton J gave guidance in judicial review proceedings and appropriate process to be adopted by a local authority assessing the younger person’s age in borderline cases. The assessment does not require anything approaching a trial and judicialisation of the process is to be avoided. The matter can be determined informally provided there are minimum standards of enquiry and fairness. This decision and this guidance have led to the development of what is sometimes referred to at a Merton compliant interview or process.”
14. In VS v the Home Office [2014] EWHC 2483, Mr Simon Picken KC, sitting as a deputy Judge of the High Court, as he then was, reviewed the authorities and helpfully summarised:
“78. Drawing on Miss Luh’s helpful summary of the Merton guidelines in her skeleton argument (a summary with which Mr Hansen did not take issue), albeit with some modifications in relation to the authorities which were cited, the relevant guidelines can be summarised as follows:
(1) The purpose of an age assessment is to establish the chronological age of a young person.
(2) The decision makers cannot determine age solely on the basis of the appearance of the applicant, except in clear cases: Merton per Stanley Burnton at [37].
(3) Physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis for assessment of chronological age: NA v LB of Croydon [2009] EWHC 2357 (Admin) per Blake J at [27].
(4) Demeanour can also be notoriously unreliable and by itself constitutes only ‘somewhat fragile material’: NA per Blake J at [28]. Demeanour will generally need to be viewed together with other things. As Collins J stated in A and WK v London Borough of Croydon & Others [2009] EWHC 939 (Admin) at [56]:
‘… What is meant by the observation that he appeared to be comfortable in his body? It is difficult to follow what this does mean and how a discomfort with a changing body can manifest itself. Nonetheless, the assessment of his physical appearance and demeanour coupled with the discrepancies and inconsistencies in his account of how he knew his age could justify the conclusion reached.’
(5) There should be ‘no predisposition, divorced from the information and evidence available to the local authority, to assume that an applicant is an adult, or conversely that he is a child’: see Merton per Stanley Burnton at [37-38]. The decision, therefore, needs to be based on particular facts concerning the particular person.
(6) There is no burden of proof imposed on the applicant to have to prove his or her age in the course of the assessment: see Merton per Stanley Burnton at [38]. This is confirmed also by R(CJ) v Cardiff CC [2011] EWCA Civ 1590, in which, at [21], Pitchford LJ said this:
‘It seems to me that once the court is invited to make a decision upon jurisdictional fact it can do no more than apply the balance of probability to the issue without resorting to the concept of discharge of a burden of proof. In my view, a distinction needs to be made between a legal burden of proof, on the one hand, and the sympathetic assessment of evidence on the other. I accept that in evaluating the evidence it may well be inappropriate to expect from the claimant conclusive evidence of age in circumstances in which he has arrived unattended and without original identity documents. The nature of the evaluation of evidence will depend upon the particular facts of the case.’
(7) In similar vein, benefit of any doubt is always given to the unaccompanied asylum-seeking child since it is recognised that age assessment is not a scientific process: see A and WK per Collins J at [40].
(8) The two social workers who carry out the age assessment should be properly trained and experienced: A and WK per Collins J at [38].
(9) The applicant should have an appropriate adult and should be informed of the right to have one with the purpose of having an appropriate adult also being explained to the applicant: see FZ per Sir Anthony May P at [23- 25]; J per Coulson J at [14]; and AAM per Lang J at [94(a)].
(10) The child should be told the purpose of the assessment see FZ per Sir Anthony May P at [3] (summarising Merton).
(11) The decision ‘must be based on firm grounds and reasons’ for it “must be fully set out and explained to the applicant’: A and WK per Collins J at [12].
(12) The approach of the assessors must involve trying ‘to establish a rapport with the applicant and any questioning, while recognising the possibility of coaching, should be by means of open-ended and not leading questions’. It is ‘equally important for the assessors to be aware of the customs and practices and any particular difficulties faced by the applicant in his home society’: A and WK per Collins J at [13].
(13) It is ‘axiomatic that an applicant should be given a fair and proper opportunity, at a stage when a possible adverse decision is no more than provisional, to deal with important points adverse to his age case which may weigh against him’: FZ per Sir Anthony May P at [21]. It is not sufficient that the interviewing social workers withdraw to consider their decision and then return to present the applicant ‘with their conclusions without first giving him the opportunity to deal with the adverse points’: [22]. See also J per Coulson J at [15]; AAM per Lang J at [94(c)]; and Durani per Coulson at [84-87] (in particular, at [84]: ‘Elementary fairness requires that the crucial points which are thought to be decisive against an applicant should be identified, in case the applicant has an explanation for them’).
(14) Assessments devoid of details and/or reasons for the conclusion are not compliant with the Merton guidelines; and the conclusions must be ‘expressed with sufficient detail to explain all the main adverse points which the fuller document showed had influenced the decision’ (FZ per Sir Anthony May at [22]).”
15. I turn to the decision in R (on the application of HAM) v Brent London Borough Council [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin); [2022] PTSR 1779, particularly at paragraphs 10 and 32. In asking the question as to whether an assessment was fair depends on the circumstances and as was made clear, observations in respect of demeanour are particularly unreliable in the context of brief one time encounters with individuals.
16. I also have in mind the decision of the Upper Tribunal comprising a panel with the Vice President Ockelton and Upper Tribunal Judge Lane in R (on the application of AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 (IAC), when it was said at paragraphs 19 and 20:
“19. … So far as demeanour is concerned, it seems to us that there may be value to be obtained from observations of demeanour and interaction with others made over a long period of time by those who have opportunity to observe an individual going about his ordinary life. But we find it difficult to see that any useful observations of demeanour or social interaction or maturity can be made in the course of a short interview between an individual and a strange adult. There may of course be cultural difficulties in such an interview but there are the ordinary social difficulties as well.
20. The asserted expertise of a social worker conducting an interview is not in our judgement sufficient to counteract those difficulties. A person such as a teacher or even a family member, who can point to consistent attitudes, and a number of supporting instances over a considerable period of time, is likely to carry weight that observations made in the artificial surroundings of an interview cannot.”
17. I also have in mind the age assessment guidance which has been issued by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, (“ADCS ”), which was published in October 2015. That sets out various matters including consideration of additional needs and vulnerabilities, the allocation of social workers, that there had been appropriate consideration of appropriate adult independent of the local authority. That there be the analysis on a holistic basis, that there be the opportunity for children and young people to address any relevant gaps or inconsistencies, that before reaching a decision that contradicts the stated age, there be a stage at which there should be discussion with a child or young person in respect of the factors which had led to the assessors coming to their opinion.
18. In R (on the application of CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590; [2012] 2 ALL ER 836, Pitchford LJ with whom Laws LJ and Lloyd Jones J agreed, said,
“Where the issue is whether the claimant is a child for the purposes of the Children Act it seems to me that the application of a legal burden is not the correct approach. There is no hurdle which the claimant must overcome. The court will decide whether, on a balance of probability, the claimant was or was not at the material time a child. The court will not ask whether the local authority has established on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was an adult; nor will it ask whether the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that he is a child.”
19. In R (on the application of SB) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2023] EWCA Civ 924; [2024] 1 WLR 2613 Elizabeth Laing LJ, with whom Falk LJ and Sir Launcelot Henderson agreed, said at paragraph 86,
“…As this court realised in Z v Croydon, an arguable procedural lapse may support an application for permission to apply for judicial review, but once permission to apply has been granted, it is unlikely to play a significant part in the court's decision, based on all the evidence, about the claimant's actual age, which is the court’s real job in these cases. Once permission to apply for judicial review has been granted, it seems to me that the norm should be that the whole case is transferred to the UT, for the UT to consider any procedural challenges in the context of its decision on the merits.”
20. As was said by Baroness Hale in R (on the application of A) and another v the London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8; [2009] 1 WLR 2557 at paragraph 33,
“The better the quality of the initial decision-making, the less likely it is that the court will come to any different decision upon the evidence.”
21. Additionally, Baroness Hale said at paragraphs 27 and 46,
“27. The question whether a person is a ‘child’ is a different kind of question. There is a right or a wrong answer. It may be difficult to determine what that answer is. The decision-makers may have to do their best on the basis of less than perfect or conclusive evidence. But that is true of many questions of fact which regularly come before the courts. That does not prevent them from being questions for the courts rather than for other kinds of decision makers…
46. The result is that if live issues remain about the age of a person seeking accommodation …, then the court will have to determine where the truth lies on the evidence available. …”
22. Lord Hope also emphasised at paragraph 54 in R (on the application of A) and another that in determining an individual’s age:
“…The initial decision taker must appreciate that no margin of discretion is enjoyed by the local authority on this issue. But the issue is not to be determined by a consideration of issues of policy or by a view as to whether resort to a decision by the court in such cases is inappropriate. It depends entirely on the meaning of the statute.”
23. In R (on the application of K) and others v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 1559 (Admin); [2013] 1 WLR 1755, the Deputy Judge in that case had observed the Claimant’s credibility is,
“…highly material, if not fundamental, to the fair and proper assessment of his age.”
24. In MVN v The London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC Civ 1942 (Admin); Pickin J said at paragraph 27 that when assessing a young person’s credibility in terms of their age that,
“The primary focus is on the credibility of the person’s evidence concerning his or her age, but that it is permissible to have regard to credibility more generally provided that, in looking at credibility more generally, the primary focus to which I have referred is not forgotten.”
His Lordship also said at paragraph 28(1),
“(1) Decision makers considering asylum claims should take everything material into account. …
(2) It is an error of law for a decision maker to seek to assess the credibility of a claim in isolation without considering other relevant evidence such as reports regarding a country that corroborates a person’s claims: …
(3) It is also an error of law to fail to take into account of relevant expert evidence when assessing credibility: …
…
(5) Allowances should be given to the fact that asylum seekers (and similarly victims of trafficking) may have problems giving coherent accounts of their history.”
25. In the assessment of documents, again there is no difference between the parties in respect of the applicable law.
26. In Tanveer Ahmed v SSHD [2002] UKAIT 00439, the IAT in a starred decision considered the correct approach to addressing the reliability of documents noting:
“1 In asylum and human rights cases it is for an individual claimant to show that a document on which he seeks to rely can be relied on.
2 The decision maker should consider whether a document is one on which reliance should properly be placed after looking at all the evidence in the round.
3 Only very rarely will there be the need to make an allegation of forgery, or evidence strong enough to support it. The allegation should not be made without such evidence. Failure to establish the allegation on the balance of probabilities to the higher civil standard does not show that a document is reliable. The decision maker still needs to apply principles 1 and 2.”
27. Tanveer Ahmed drew an important distinction on documents which are not a forgery but may contain false information, noting:
“At its simplest we need to differentiate between form and content; that is whether a document is properly issued by the purported author, and whether the contents are true”.
28. In SA (Kuwait) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1157, the Court of Appeal described this as “two different kinds of inauthenticity” namely “forgery of the document itself, and the making of false entries on a genuine document”.
29. In QC (verification of documents; Mibanga duty) China [2021] UKUT 00033 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considered the possibility that a document was issued with incorrect details due to innocent mistake compared with the other possibility that it contains false information due to a wish of the authorities to do so or for example, as a result of bribery. The Tribunal noted that a document emanating from a proper source may not be reliable because: "Unlike the position in the United Kingdom where, happily, instances of corrupt officialdom are relatively rare, it is possible that the foreign official who produced the document may have been suborned".
30. In RP (proof of forgery) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT 00086, the Upper Tribunal held that:
“In judicial proceedings an allegation of forgery needs to be established to a high degree of proof, by the person making the allegation. This is therefore a matter on which the respondent bears the burden of proof. Immigration Judges decide cases on evidence, and in the absence of any concession by the appellant, an Immigration Judge is not entitled to find or assume that a document is a forgery, or to treat it as a forgery for the purposes of his determination, save on the basis of evidence before him...”
The Local Authority’s Age Assessment
31. The Respondent’s age assessors were Neil Connolly a social work team manager and Megan Thomas, a social worker. Their witness statements are dated 2 December 2025 and 5 December 2025 respectively. The Respondent’s age assessors did not provide oral evidence before me.
32. The Respondent’s age assessment has several sections. These include a section headed “Physical appearance, demeanour” in which it was said that “When meeting with [MA] I noted that he looked much older than the 17 he is claiming is his age”.
33. In a subsequent section headed “Interaction of person during assessment” states “He interacted well with the interpreter and did not seem frustrated. I would say his confidence was very adult biased [sic] and not what I [sic] would expect from a young teenager”.
34. Under a section headed “Social history and family composition” there were detailed questions to the Applicant about his family and his journey to the UK. Asked about his Facebook account, the exchange was as follows:
“What apps were you using?
M: Facebook and TikTok.
Are you willing to show your Facebook account?
M: agreed and handed over phone, DOB on Facebook account the 16/10/2007.”
35. A section headed “Developmental considerations” stated that he had worked in Afghanistan providing help to a mechanic. It states:
“M: It was in the village, I was just observing your teacher, I would help out by giving him different tools and being a general helper.
How old were you when you started working? I was about 10 years old when I first started working in the garage. Used to only have small cars so not very busy. Mechanic named Sajult, My father knew him.
Were you paid? M: I would be given a little bit of pocket money a week to buy an ice-cream or similar. Not much at all.
How often would you work?
M: I didn't work fridays but I would attend school and then work with him afterwards. How long did you work in the garage?
M: Until I left Afghanistan which would be approximately 2 years.”
36. In the section headed “Education” the Applicant said he was aged 7 when he started school. He was in the 6th Class when he left Afghanistan. He provided the name and address of his school. He said he went to school in the afternoons.
37. In the section headed “Independent/self care skills” he said that when in Afghanistan, his mother and his sisters did the cooking but he had learned cooking when living here in the UK in accommodation with the 5 other boys he was placed with by the Local Authority. He said he had also been taught how to clean and to “Hoover”. He said he used the gym but got hurt and had to see a doctor. He said he had seen others in the gym shave their forearms when weight training and he did too. He said he was thinking of getting a tattoo.
38. Towards the end of the age assessment, the assessors said that the Applicant was not childlike in his mannerisms and he had a confidence which was not congruent with someone under 18.
39. The Applicant was also asked questions about his identity documents.
40. It is important to highlight that the Applicant explained throughout that a different calendar is used in Afghanistan compared to our Gregorian calendar here in the UK.
41. Indeed, it is clear that even during the age assessment, the interpreter used by the Respondent had made a mistake. There is an exchange as follows:
“Asked translator if he can read the date on the stamp: 1386/7/24, which would be 2007 however, if you were 10 when this picture was taken and date stamped then this would lead to you being 10 years older.
We went through the calendar transition and highlighted that the stamp is sighted as 1386/07/24 which is equivalent to 16/07/2007.
The translator then clarified that they had been confused and were reading your birthday which was recorded on the document not the stamp above, he stated this was too blurred to read.”
42. I therefore note that the Applicant has said his date of birth was 1386/07/24 which converts to 16 July 2007. It would make him aged 17 at the time of the age assessment. The Applicant did not provide a date 10 years older. The interpreter appears to have said that “10 years older” date in error and which error was noted as above by the Local Authority’s social workers. I note that it is said that the Applicant is said to have provided different days in 2007 as his date of birth, but the Applicant explained that he had provided the 1386/07/24 as his date of birth. He said it may have been incorrectly translated as being 1 January 2007 or 15 July 2027 or 16 October 2007. Importantly even with those mistakes in translating, the year of birth has remained largely consistent. Namely 2007. The difference in the months is relatively minor when the Respondent contends that the Applicant is ‘considerably’ older than his claimed age. The Local Authority contends that the Applicant was born in 2000 making him 7 years older than his claimed age.
43. A section headed “Feedback from the Current Care Team” agreed with the Applicant’s claimed date of birth. It states:
“I’m happy to provide my observations of [MA] I currently work as the Registered Service Manager for Young London and have been supporting Brecknock Home since its opening in 2024.
I’ve been closely monitoring [MA]’s development since he arrived with us in October 2024. [MA] has been engaging well with both the staff and the other young people in the home. Initially, there were challenges in understanding his skills due to a language barrier, as his English was quite limited. However, since attending college and ESOL classes, his English has improved significantly, which has helped him engage better with both the staff and the other young people in the home. Although his attendance has fluctuated due to health issues, he has made clear progress in his language skills, which has been beneficial for his personal development.
When it comes to my views on his age, I have not had concerns regarding the age he claims. [MA] has consistently interacted in a way that is appropriate for his age, particularly with his peers, who are around 16 or 17 years old. For example, during Ramadan, he was fully involved with the other young boys in the home in preparing and sharing meals, which is something typical of someone in his claimed age range. Furthermore, when a 16-year-old boy joined the home, [MA] and the other boys were very welcoming, cooking dinner and inviting him to join.
In terms of his development at Brecknock, we have been supporting him with skills that are typical of someone aged 16 or 17, such as applying for his entitlements, budgeting, home management and cleaning, preparing meals, and storing food. [MA] shows good ability to learn and improve these skills, and I have no concerns about his claimed age based on my professional observations.
I have attached some key work sessions that may help further illustrate the support we’ve been providing to [MA] and the way he has been progressing in terms of his entitlements and development.
Please do let me know if you need any further information or clarification.”
44. The analysis section of the report states that:
“A fully Merton Complaint Age assessment was completed and both the 2 social workers and the home office agreed that you are an adult. It was clarified that we are struggling to believe that you are in fact a child, today we will ask you several more specific questions. Offer for you to have food, drink and rests whenever you needed.”
45. Further matters were recorded thereafter, including the “minded to” discussions and responses from the Applicant. The assessment concluded:
“…we have concluded this assessment and agree with Home Office, and your initial Age Assessment, that you are in fact an adult. We agree with the Date of Birth given by the Home Office…”
The Applicant’s Evidence
46. I heard oral evidence from the Applicant and he had adopted his witness statement dated 2 September 2025 as part of his evidence-in-chief. There was also an earlier witness statement for the asylum claim.
47. A summary of the Applicant’s witness statement is that he said that he grew up in a village in Nangarhar, Afghanistan, which I am not going to identify more specifically for anonymity purposes. The Applicant said that his father had been a soldier. His father had been killed by the Taliban. Other evidence refers to the Taliban seeking to recruit or were seeking the Applicant too. The Applicant set out details of his siblings. He was the fourth youngest of the children. He said he lived in a house made of mud and that the location of the home was in a ‘beautiful green area’.
48. The Applicant described his home as follows:
“We had a large front-garden where we had a cow, and grew vegetables such as tomatoes, onions and potatoes and cultivated wheat on our land. We had running water however, we did not have internet connection and did not have reliable electricity supply, so many of our neighbours and ourselves relied on installed solar panels.”
49. The Applicant said in respect of attending school that:
“I attended elementary school from the age of seven years old. The school year ran from the ‘Hamal’ month in the Afghan calendar until ‘Qaws’ month in the Afghan calendar. My legal representatives have told me that these months converted into the Gregorian calendar are March and November. My school was called [redacted] which was based in the province of Nangahar. The school contained nine year groups and was a short distance walk from my home, around 30 minutes. I enjoyed attending school and I studied subjects such as Maths, Art, Sports and both the Qur’an and the Pashto language. At my school, boys and girls studied separately- we attended classes in the afternoon. I stopped attending when I was around 13 years old, after completing year six. I did attend around one or two weeks of year seven, but I stopped attending due to the issues that my father experienced with the Taliban.”
50. The Applicant provided details in respect of his father as follows:
“My father passed away in February 2021. I believe that my father was killed by the Taliban. One evening, I was watering the vegetables on our land. From a distance, I saw the Taliban on the side of the road. I recognised that they were members of the Taliban because they were carrying weapons and were not wearing uniform (instead, they were wearing Afghan traditional clothing). At the time, I thought that they were digging a hole in the road. I got scared and hid, as I did not want them to see me. When they left, I went to go to see what they were doing. To me, it appeared that they had dug a hole into the ground. I called my mother who spoke to my father. I was scared as this was the route that my father took to and from work. My father told me to return to the house, and he asked some soldiers to investigate. My father told me that the other soldiers had found a land mine buried into the ground. A few days later, the Taliban turned up at my house and requested to speak to me. They kept telling my mother that they had seen me and suspected that I had informed the soldiers about the landmine. The Taliban regularly visited our house and demanded that both my father and I hand ourselves to the Taliban. I have been told by others in the village that my father was killed by the Taliban when he was going to work. Other people in the village brought my father’s body home and informed us about the news. We were all shocked by the news. The passing of my father caused me to become very sad. I did not want to talk about it to anyone at the time and I felt very alone, especially as my mother sent me to my uncle’s house to stay for my safety. I remember that I cried a lot after hearing the news about my father. I was also very scared as the Taliban continued to come to my house, demanding to speak to me. I still get very emotional when I am asked questions about my father. I always think of my father, and I miss him dearly.”
51. In respect of his date of birth, the Applicant said in his witness statement:
14. I am 17 years old, and my date of birth is 16 October 2007. I don’t believe I was told my age and date of birth by my mother when I lived in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, age and date of birth are not as important and I never felt I needed to ask them about this information. However, I roughly knew my age based on the school year that I attended. For example, I knew that I was over 13 years old but under 14 years old when I left Afghanistan as I had completed year six and only studied in year seven for around one or two weeks.
15. I remember my mother and paternal uncle telling me my age and date of birth when I was in Romania. I remember being told my date of birth in the Afghan calendar. I also now know my age and date of birth as I have a Taskira and Birth Registration Card, which both record my date of birth.
16. I did not travel from Afghanistan with my Taskira because I had heard from other people before I left Afghanistan that if you were caught by Iranian authorities, they would destroy your document and return you back to your home country.
17. I did not celebrate any birthdays in Afghanistan as in my culture, we do not typically celebrate birthdays. Identity Document- Birth Registration Card
18. I have a Birth Registration Card which I understand from my legal representatives has been authenticated and verified by two different experts.
19. I received a photograph of my Birth Registration Card from my paternal uncle when I was in Belgium. I did not know that I had a Birth Registration Card and was surprised to receive a copy of this document, having initially only requested to be sent a photograph of my Taskira document. When I received the photograph of this document, it was the first time that I had seen the document.
20. As I have explained in this statement, I did not know that I had a Birth Registration Card and I do not know how this document was obtained. However, I know from my mother that I was born in a hospital and from reading the document, I know that records my date of birth, and that it was issued on that same day.
Identity Document- Taskira Issuance
21. I have a Taskira document which I understand from my legal representatives has been authenticated and verified by two different experts.
22. I received a photograph of my re-issued Taskira document from my paternal uncle when I was in Belgium. As I will explain in detail later in this statement, when I fled Afghanistan, I knew that I had a Taskira document and that it recorded my age and date of birth. It is for this reason that when I was asked by the Belgium authorities if I had any identity documents which could prove my claimed date of birth, I contacted my family to ask if they could send me a copy of my Taskira document. Before I received the photograph of my re-issued Taskira document, I believe that I had seen my first physical Taskira document on one occasion, and later, my re-issued physical Taskira document on another separate occasion when I lived in Afghanistan.
23. I was around six years old when I was issued with my first Taskira document. At the time, I did not understand the full importance of the Taskira document and that it recorded important details such as my age and date of birth. My father told me that I needed to obtain the document in order to enrol in school. Therefore, at the time, I thought this document was only helpful for school registration purposes
24. I was very young when I was issued with my first Taskira document. I am not able to recall all the details, but I have provided as much information as I can in this statement. I remember travelling with my father from my home to Kagi Bazaar by vehicle. The journey was around 15 minutes. I remember attending a big government building, which contained different offices. When we entered the building, I remember seeing people outside the different offices. I now know that these people were petition writers. My father approached one of the petition writers and explained to them that he wanted to request a Taskira document for me. I cannot remember the details of my father’s conversation with the petition writer; however, I remember the petition writer recording information and my father giving the petition writer some money. I then had my photograph taken in a small shop. We were given four or five copies of my photograph. We then walked to the office where Taskira documents are issued, but before entering, we were both searched twice by different officers. After being searched, we were told to sit down and to wait in the queue. At the time, I remember the office being very busy and crowded. I saw different officers sitting at different tables and recording information. When we were called, I walked to the table and remember seeing a male officer who had a beard and was wearing traditional Afghan clothing, with a waistcoat. Other than asking me how I was, the officer only spoke to my father. I cannot remember what questions the officer asked my father or my father’s responses to the questions being asked. However, I remember seeing my father hand over the petition and all of the photographs that had been taken earlier that same day. After the officer finished asking his questions, we then walked to another office, and we were handed my Taskira document, which was enclosed in a clear plastic sleeve.
25. After I was issued with my Taskira document, I remember my father and I attending my school (De Kagi Bazaar Enjono Maktab) in order to enrol. We enrolled around two weeks (to my best estimate) before my first day at school, and when I was seven years old. We attended the administration office, and my father spoke to the headteacher. Other teachers and a director were also in the administration office. I cannot recall what my father and the headteacher were discussing. I remember my father showing my Taskira document to the headteacher, and the headteacher filling out some papers, and adding my name to the attendance book. After my name was added to the attendance book, I was told by my headteacher that I would be provided with a school bag, pencils and a notebook on my first day at school. At the time, I did not know that my father’s details were incorrectly recorded on the Taskira document, or whether the issue was noticed by my father or the school at the time.
26. I was first told that my first Taskira document contained incorrect information when I was around ten years old. My school provided all students in year 1, year 2 and year 3 with a notebook, pens, books and a school bag. However, from year four, other than books, I stopped receiving the other items from the school. I understand from my form tutor that students in year four and above received just biscuits and books. I was asked by my school to bring my Taskira to prove that I was eligible to receive biscuits. After being asked to produce my Taskira, I spoke to my mother and asked her to speak to my father (who was away at work) to find my Taskira document. At the time, I did not know where my father was keeping my Taskira document. After I was given my Taskira document by my mother, I showed it to the school however, they told me that my father’s name had been incorrectly recorded. They told me that I needed to speak to my father about the issue, and that he would know what to do. I was told that I would not receive any biscuits until I provided a Taskira document which accurately recorded my father’s details. After being informed by the school, I spoke to my mother and after a few days, my father took me to the Taskira office to get my Taskira document amended.
27. I was ten years old when I was re-issued with my Taskira document. Again, I am not able to remember all the details, but I remember travelling to the same office by vehicle with my father. I believe we attended the same big government building, and when we entered, my father approached one of the petition writers and explained to them that he wanted to amend the Taskira document that had previously been issued to me. I had updated photographs taken in a small shop, and we then entered the office which issued Taskira documents. As before, the office contained several officers who were each sitting next to tables and recording information. I remember the officer being a male and he stood out to me as his clothes were very grand and nice, not clothing that people from my village typically wear. I remember hearing my father informing the officer that he wanted him to amend my Taskira as it incorrectly recorded his name. From my best recollection, the officer responded to my father and explained that he could not amend the Taskira, but he would re-issue the Taskira. My father and the officer spoke to each other, and I could see the officer copying information recorded from the old Taskira document onto the re-issued Taskira document. Again, we were told to collect the Taskira document from a different office. When we were given the re-issued Taskira document, I noticed that the Taskira document had my updated photograph and accurately recorded my father’s name. My father also told me that he would get the Taskira signed by a village elder.”
52. In cross examination the Applicant was asked about his home village in Afghanistan. He said other families live in his village too. He said that in the winter months it was cold and hot in the summer months. He said that there was ‘a nice mountainous view’ from his village. School was some 30 minutes walking distance away. The Applicant said he was aged about 7 when he commenced school. He said the school month started from the 3rd month and ended in the 11th month. He explained that schooling was usually for 9 years but he had left earlier.
53. The Applicant was asked about his Taskira, being an ID document. The Applicant agreed that a Taskira document was required to register at school.
54. The Applicant commenced school with that Taskira. The Applicant said that after some 3 years at school, he had to show his Taskira again. This was for entitlement to some biscuits. I understood this to be some fortified biscuits provided for nutrition purposes by the UNICEF or some NGO. The Applicant said that there was a problem with his Taskira because it did not have the correct name for his father. The Applicant was therefore asked to get the Taskira corrected.
55. The issue being that the Applicant’s father’s full name was incorrect on the original Taskira. The Applicant explained in his oral and written evidence that although he could not recall all of the details as he was aged only 10, he recalled going with his father in a vehicle to government buildings. Updated photographs had to be taken of the Applicant at a nearby shop and petition writers assisted with obtaining the updated Taskira document. The Applicant said that an officer stood out to him because he was wearing ‘very nice grand clothing’. The Applicant said that as best as he was able to recall, he remembered the officer saying that the Taskira could not be amended, but that a new Taskira would have to be issued instead. The Applicant said he recalled seeing the Taskira being prepared. The Taskira later needed to be signed by a village elder.
56. It was put to the Applicant that he was not telling the truth about his Taskira. He was pressed on why he did not mention that there had been 2 Taskiras and he said that the social workers had not asked him that. He said he was asked about how the Taskira was obtained when he was aged 6 and he said he told the social workers about that. He said when asked about the Taskira at age 10 on the following day at his further interview he had told the social workers. He said he did not know that there was an issue with first Taskira because he was aged just 6 and the school had not raised an issue at that time.
57. Asked about the Birth Registration Card, he said he did not know that his had existed until he was sent a picture of it when he was in Belgium. It was put to the Applicant that the Taskira and Birth Registration Card were fraudulent documents. The Applicant said that he had not seen the Birth Registration Card previously and could not comment on that but he insisted that the Taskira was genuine. The Applicant responded robustly to say that there was no proof that the Taskira was not genuine.
58. The Applicant provided details of his WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. He said when he left Belgium his WhatsApp had not been working. He said he had not saved the messages from his uncle when in Belgium. I understood him to say that the image had saved on to his “gallery” on his mobile telephone.
59. The Applicant was asked about working in Afghanistan. He said he had been helping a mechanic. He said he worked from 9am to 1pm and he then went to school. If there was no school on that day then he said he would stay at the mechanics for the whole day. He said he was an assistant to the master mechanic. He said, “I mostly unfix the tyre and the mechanic came and look at the issue with tyre.” He said he would also open the bonnet and “unfix” the water radiator. The Applicant said that he has asked Hampshire County Council to permit him to work doing (car) mechanic work a number of times. It was put to the Applicant that a 15 or 16 year old would be doing the type or work that he was describing, but the Applicant asked what proof there was of that and that, in effect, it was commonplace for boys of his age to be doing this sort of assistant work with a mechanic to learn the skills. The Applicant said he did get paid for the work but that it was “quite little”.
60. The Applicant was asked about the languages that he spoke. Other than some English he said he spoke Pashto and some Dari. He said he was also able to understand some Farsi. The Applicant said he left Afghanistan in March 2021 and arrived in the UK on 5 August 2023 and so he had been travelling for some 2 years and 5 months. He said he had been with agents and others along the journey. Asked if he went to school along his journey, the Applicant asked, “are there schools in the jungle”. I reminded the Applicant to answer the questions being asked. The Applicant said he had asked if he could go to school in Belgium.
61. The Applicant said that he had been given ID documents along the journey by the agents and which were then taken off him. He referred to his witness statement at paragraph 41 which referred to a time when he was in Turkey. That stated:
“I do not know where the other people went, but they left during different points on route to Tatvan. At the wall, we were each given an identity card by the smugglers. The identity card recorded a different name and did not have my picture. I am unsure if it recorded a date of birth. The smugglers told us to show the identity card to a police officer if we were ever caught. Unfortunately, I lost the identity card during my journey to the United Kingdom.”
62. The Applicant was taken through his journey from Afghanistan to the UK. He provided details of approximately how long he had spent in each location. He said that the agents would permit them to call their families on occasion. The Applicant said he had looked for work when he was in Turkey because they were only given 10 to 15 Turkish Lira per day for food. He said the places that he went to for work said he was too young. He said he was aged 14 at the time.
63. The Applicant referred to interacting with the authorities in Serbia and Romania. He said he told the authorities in Germany that he was aged 15 and they had accepted that. He said once in Belgium where had stayed for some 6 to 7 months, he had “left everything behind”. He was asked how he was able to bring his mobile telephone with him and asked if he had deliberately left documents behind The Applicant insisted that if he knew he would be asked for documents once in the UK then “surely I would have brought them with me”. It was put to him that his solicitors should have obtained some of the documents from the Belgian authorities. He said that those were matters for his solicitors and he did not know what to say about his solicitors.
64. The Applicant provided details in respect of his Facebook account. He gave details of the photographs within the bundle. Such as page 239 which was taken in Reading, Berkshire. Page 242 was said to have been taken on Eid day in 2025. He said page 71 had been taken by his first social worker.
65. It was put to the Applicant that Ms Victoria Simmonds had said that the Applicant was highly independent and assertive. He explained about being required to move from Liverpool to Southampton. He said he knew some people in Reading and wanted some money to go there. He said the room in Southampton is small and has a bad smell so he tries to get away from that. He said Ms Simmonds said that she thought that the Applicant’s level of English was better than he claimed. The Applicant said that Ms Simmonds never arranged an interpreter but although he could understand most things in English, he could not understand everything. Ms Simmonds had said that she thought the Applicant thought that the people he lived with were of a lower class than him. She also referred to food banks.
66. The Applicant was asked about going to the gym. He agreed he had shaved his forearms because he saw others had done that at the gym so he did too.
67. It was put to the Applicant that he was born much earlier than October 2007. It was said he had undertaken a dangerous journey to come to the UK. It was put to him that he had concealed his true age. The Applicant said he agreed he had gone through an arduous journey but he had no choice but to do so. He said that his documents had been checked by a number of people and they were genuine.
68. In re-examination the Applicant said that the reason people were shaving their forearms was because pictures were being taken of themselves with their physique and for image purposes. He said it was nice so he did it too. Asked about Ms Simmonds evidence, he said there was another person sharing a room with him in Liverpool, but he did not say to Ms Simmonds about lower class because she was not his social worker at that time. The Applicant was asked about the Taskira and the biscuits and mention was made of food stamps. Asked about being an assistant to the mechanic, the Applicant said there were 3 others there too and he said they were younger than him. The Applicant provided evidence in respect of his Facebook account and the saving of the pictures to galleries. The Applicant said he had not stayed in Southampton for Eid because he did not have any friends there. He said he celebrated Eid in Reading and shared sweets and prayers with others in Reading.
69. I have summarised a lot, but not all, the Applicant’s evidence, which I think has been necessary to do in this case.
The Applicant’s Witnesses’ Evidence
70. I now turn to some of the evidence of the Applicant’s witnesses.
71. Ms Lea Abi-Akl provided oral evidence. She is the Registered Service Manger for an organisation known as Young London Today. She adopted her witness statement dated 25 June 2025 as part of her evidence. She explained that she had been working at Brecknock since it was opened in 2024. Brecknock being a semi-independent residential facility that accommodates young people. Primarily supporting asylum seeking children and young adults between the ages of 16 to 18.
72. Ms Lea Abi-Akl’s witness statement said that:
“My role has enabled me to closely observe [MA]’s behaviour and development ever since he arrived with us in October 2024. I interact with the staff that support [MA] on a daily basis as part of my management responsibilities, observing his interactions with staff and other residents (his peers), and overseeing his support plan along with the other young people.
4. Based on my observations, [MA] has been engaging well with both the staff and the other young people in Brecknock. Brecknock currently houses three other young people, all aged between 16-18 years old. Initially, there were challenges in understanding his skills due to a language barrier, as his English was quite limited. However, since regularly attending college and ESOL classes, his English has improved significantly, which has helped him engage better with both the staff and the other young people in Brecknock. Although his attendance has fluctuated due to health issues, he has made clear progress in his language skills, which has been beneficial for his personal development. His commitment to his education, despite health challenges, demonstrates a level of focus and determination that I observe to be consistent with someone approaching adulthood within the 16-17 age range.
5. In terms of my personal views on [MA]s age, I have not had any concerns regarding the age he claims. [MA] has consistently interacted in a way that is appropriate for his age, particularly with his peers, who are around 16 or 17 years old. For example, during Ramadan, he was fully involved with the other young boys in Brecknock in preparing and sharing meals, which is something typical of someone in his claimed age range. He regularly participates in group activities such as watching television, listening to music, and playing games with the other residents. He often jokes and laughs with his peers, displaying the kind of natural, age-appropriate social interactions I would expect from someone of his claimed age. Furthermore, when a 16 year-old boy joined Brecknock, [MA] and the other boys were very welcoming, cooking dinner and inviting him to join their activities.
6. In my direct interactions with [MA], he comes across as polite and respectful, though sometimes quiet, particularly when discussing more serious matters. His behaviour and demeanour are entirely consistent with his claimed age - he shows the appropriate level of maturity for a 17-year-old, while still displaying the social dynamics and interests typical of someone in this age group.
7. In terms of his development at Brecknock, we have been supporting him through our structured support programme, which provides approximately 10 - 15 hours per week of one-to-one support delivered by his designated keyworker. This includes skills development such as applying for his entitlements, budgeting, home management and cleaning, preparing meals, and storing food. We provide these skills classes specifically to young people between the ages of 16-18, as part of their transition to independent living. [MA] shows good ability to learn and willingness to improve these skills, and his level of independence is entirely consistent with his claimed age. He demonstrates the learning capacity and developmental progress I would expect from someone aged 17.
8. I have no concerns about his claimed age based on my professional observations. I was genuinely surprised and shocked when I heard that his age had been disputed and that he was assessed to be 23 years old at the date of the assessment. This assessment is completely inconsistent with my daily observations of his behaviour, social interactions, developmental needs, and overall presentation, all of which align with someone of his claimed age.”
73. In her oral evidence Ms Lea Abi-Akl said that since her witness statement she does not work for Young London Today. She said her role then was the operational side of homes that they had managed and to support young people. She told me that prior to this role, she had worked in residential care for children for over 10 years, after having completed her Masters Degree. She said she had worked her way up in supported accommodation for children. This included for children in care and she had also worked in a psychiatric unit.
74. Ms Lea Abi-Akl confirmed that she had sent an opinion to the age assessors and which appeared at page 479 of the bundle. In that e-mail to age assessors she had said as has been set out what I have set out above in respect of the evidence provided by Ms Simmonds. The witness also referred to page 1297 of the bundle which was an online care plan for the Applicant. Ms Lea Abi-Akl said that her views in respect of the Applicant’s age had not changed. Namely she thought that the Applicant’s age was as claimed by him.
75. In cross examination Ms Lea Abi-Akl was asked about her work with the Applicant. She said that as the registered manager, her role was to oversee the work being provided by the key workers. She said she was managing other homes too at the time. She said she had been spending lots of time with children do understand their needs and wants. She was undertaking a full 9 to 5 job she told me. She said there were 6 boys being cared for in the various homes.
76. Asked if the key worker records were complete within the bundle, the witness said that much of the time the records were kept at the home and not sent to social workers unless they were asked for or unless they were required for an inspection by Ofsted or the like. The witness said that when providing her witness statement she had been working from memory. She said that most of her working experience was with those under 18 and some aged 18 to 21. She said that there were other children in the same home as the Applicant. She said all were aged 16 to 17 years of age. She said some of the others were also Afghans. The witness partly agreed that to share food together or experiences with others in the home was not necessarily indicative of the Applicant being aged under 18. She accepted too that it did not necessarily follow that being able to deal with budgeting and home management and learning such skills did not mean he was under 18. She said the 2 things could be true at the same time.
77. In re-examination Ms Lea Abi-Akl said that her organisation had worked with many local authorities and not just with Hampshire County Council. She said that the Applicant’s place had been funded by Hampshire. She said that there were various local authority duties that had to be met and the requirements of Ofsted.
78. Asked what the process would be if the witness or one of the social workers had a concern about the resident’s age, she said that others in the home might be at risk of criminal or sexual exploitation. If there was an issue about safeguarding then there would be a discussion with the social worker. The witness stressed that there were no concerns about this Applicant from any of the core workers or others. She said that there were 3 shifts per day and so there were lots of different workers but none had raised an issue about the Applicant’s age not being what he claimed it to be.
79. Asked if there had ever been an issue with any other residents, the witness said that she spoke many different languages herself and that in a different case a person had passed all of his reviews and even though there was a positive age assessment saying that person was under 18, they still had their concerns about that person and raised it as a concern with the social workers.
80. The witness was asked what she meant when she said at paragraph 7 of her witness statement that the Applicant had “Social dynamics and interests typical of someone in this age group”, she said it meant sports, gym and riding bicycles.
81. Asked to reflect on whether she ever felt that the Applicant was aged in his 20’s when at the home, she said when he lived there, “I do not think that at any point he was over 18”.
82. The next witness to give evidence was Ms Mary Matasva. She is a support worker, working for Willow Tree. She adopted her witness statement dated 4 February 2026 as part of her evidence. She stated that she had supported the Applicant between 11 August 2023 and 26 July 2024. She told me that she had been a care worker in South Africa prior to 2018.
83. Mr Hocking asked the witness if in her role as a support worker it was an important part of her job to build a good relationship with those being accommodated. She disagreed and said that they were provided with support and nurturing. She said that it was not necessary to be friends with the people they work with. She said there was no permission to build a rapport with the young people. She said it was it was important to have a good relationship with the children they worked with. Asked if it was important to believe what the young person was telling them, she said it was not proper for her to believe what they say. She said she would not challenge them but that “I have my observations and can do my investigations to see what they say is true”.
84. The witness agreed that the Applicant was with them at Willow Tree between August 2023 and July 2024. She was asked if the Applicant was newly in the country that it was not surprising, he needed lots of support. She said he was asking for support and so she provided it. The witness was asked about the weekly reports in the bundle. There were 4 such reports in the bundle. There were some 48 in total. The witness said she did not know why the other reports were not in the bundle, but they had been sent by Willow Tree to the social workers at the local authority.
85. The witness was asked about paragraph 5 of her witness statement which stated:
“During his time at the placement, [MA] was supported to register with Bracknell and Wokingham College, as well as with a GP, dentist, and optician. He was supported to attend all appointments, including college meetings, PEP meetings, CLA review meetings, and his age assessment, as he required a high level of support at the time. This is consistent with other young people that I have supported. From my experience, we often support a young person to attend the first or second appointment, however, [MA] continued to receive support attending further meetings and appointments as it was felt by the professionals supporting him that he needed additional support and reassurance. Over time, I noticed that his confidence level improved and he was better able to communicate his needs to professionals.”
86. When it was suggested to the witness this support was required in view of the Applicant being new to the UK, the witness insisted that was not a fair observation. She said that Willow Tree had taken the Applicant to an initial appointment, but he was not able to go any appointments on his own. She said for other young people at most it was 2 appointments that they attended with them.
87. The witness said that all others in the home at Willow Tree were Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children. She said that she used Google Translate to communicate with the Applicant at the placement because he did not speak English well.
88. The witness was asked to consider paragraph 6 of her witness statement in which she said:
Throughout his placement, [MA] consistently presented as a young person whose behaviour and presentation matched his stated age. This is based on my experience and interactions supporting other young people. This was evident in the way he communicated with staff, interacted during meetings, and socialised with other young people at the placement. I often observed him playing games with other young people in the placement and sharing jokes. The young people also socialised together- going shopping together and completing tasks together. [MA] also demonstrated interest in playing cricket and was keen to learn and do well in college. This reinforced my observations of his age. In my experience, young people from the age of 17 years are often more focused on finding a job and gaining more independence, however, [MA] wanted to have fun and was very focused on his studies.”
89. It was put to her that it was not surprising that the Applicant would be socialising with other 16 to 17 year olds and she agreed. She said that some of the persons did not have permission to work but went out to work anyway. She said that the Applicant though followed the rules and complied.
90. The witness was asked about paragraph 7 of her witness statement where she said:
“As part of placement activities, group sessions were held covering topics such as sex and relationships. During these discussions, [MA] appeared shy and uncomfortable. He often avoided engaging in these conversations and told staff that he was too shy to approach girls. When topics such as sexual relationships, sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception were discussed, [MA] would hide his face, stand behind others, or giggle, which was consistent with immature behaviour expected of a young person of his claimed age.”
91. It was put to the witness that this was perhaps due to cultural unfamiliarity because such things were not discussed. The witness said that she did not agree. She said that the 4 other residents were also Afghans and of the same age and they were all able to engage in such discussions. She said that some had engaged in sexual activities too because some were speaking from experience.
92. The witness was also asked about other parts of her witness statement such as doing the chores and cooking. She said that the Applicant did not challenge staff. She said, “He had the respect of a young person towards adults like other young people at the placement…I say as a mother myself. He was a young person and was below the age of 18 and I compared him with other people in the home and we were making our own observations.”
93. It was put to the witness that this could just as easily mean it was a man aged 21 new to the country and she reiterated her evidence, agreeing though that some aspects of unfamiliarity with how to do things would not necessarily mean that the person is under 18.
94. In re-examination the witness said that it was common for Hampshire County Council to ask for their views when there are age assessments to be undertaken. The witness said she did not think that the Applicant was merely an inexperienced 20 year old because he was always asking for support. Asked whether the Applicant could be a 20 year old lacking in confidence, the witness said whilst this was possible, “It could be, but from my perspective, I believed he was a child.”
95. The Applicant also called Shona Walne, a Youth Welfare Officer at a charity called Young Roots, as a witness. Ms Walne relied on her witness statement dated 26 September 2024. She provided evidence remotely because she was on maternity leave and indeed the young baby featured in the video link too.
96. In her oral evidence the witness said that the Applicant told her that his year of birth was 2007 and she had no reason to believe it was not. She said she had met the Applicant in July 2024 and she recalled 4 interactions with him in addition meetings. She said she last had interaction with the Applicant at a youth activity in October 2024.
97. In cross examination she confirmed it was correct that because her charity worked with young asylum seekers then she would not ask questions and would get on with providing the support they needed. She said that as a policy, persons were treated at the age that they say they are, even if the age is disputed. She said it was a sensible policy and that her charity worked with older people too. I understood this to be for other services reserved for adults. She said the charity worked with people aged between 11 and 25. If they were older then those concerns would be raised because they should not be accessing the charity’s services.
98. The witness was asked about the contemporaneous records for the Applicant. She said there was a database but she did not know why those records were not before the Tribunal. She said she had seen those records and they described the interaction that the Applicant had with her. She referred to 4 instances of activity which included regular English classes, board games and she referred to Young Roots Hub.
99. The witness was asked to elaborate on the differences between what she would expect of a 16/17 year old and someone aged 20. She said it was a generalisation, but a 16 to 17 year old would be less independent and more in need of support and more vulnerable on account of their young age and often more frightened compared with someone older than that. The witness agreed though that there could be a particularly anxious person in their 20’s and a particularly confident teenager. She said could only give her experience but it is not an exact science. She said she agreed that in respect of the Applicant not wishing to attend events without a friend, that could mean he is someone older too. She said she had meant in terms of travel though.
100. It was put to the witness that she was not concerned about the Applicant’s exact age and that what she had witnessed during her care of the Applicant could just as easily have been consistent with him being in his early 20’s or aged 16. The witness said, “I would say that we would support him whether he was in his teens or early 20’s, but that is not to say I would write a witness statement unless I believed that he was a young person”. She said that there were cases when others were not supported by the provision of a witness statement because there had not been confidence that the person was the age that they were saying they were.
101. It was said to the witness that she was not deliberately lying or misrepresenting the position but it was being put to her that it was equally consistent with the Applicant being considerably older than he claimed. The witness said that “I cannot say with 100% certainty his age… I can only give my best opinion”.
102. There were also 2 new witness statements from the Applicant’s mother and his uncle. I admitted those witness statements, but I agree with Mr Hocking that there has been no opportunity for the Respondent to cross examine on those witness statements. Whilst hearsay is admissible in these proceedings, I conclude that I am only able to give only minimal of weight to these 2 witness statements for that reason. I will consider this evidence in the round with that minimal weight.
103. Dr Zadeh provided expert evidence in this case. I shall refer to his evidence in more detail further below.
104. Other than the Age Assessment Report dated 23 June 2025 and the Outcome of the Age Assessment report dated 7 July 2025 the Respondent relied on the oral and written evidence of Ms Victoria Simmonds. She is a Child and Families Social Worker. She adopted her witness statement dated 1 December 2025 as part of her evidence. She said was the allocated social worker for the Applicant from May 2025 to October 2025.
105. In cross examination Ms Simmonds said that she had qualified in July 2024. She said had undertaken a ‘number of’ age assessments since 2025 and so it was incorrect in her witness statement to say that she had undertaken those since 2024. She said she had not given evidence previously in respect of age assessments. She referred to ASYE for newly qualified social workers. She said she does not now work with refugees and now works in kinship care having moved on 6 November 2025.
106. Despite all statutory visits requiring to be recorded, she did so later. Asked about documents in the bundle, including page 971, the witness said she took over from Ms Sophie White who was on maternity leave. Asked about the document, the witness said, “To be honest I am doubting myself now”. She took a long pause and said, “I am not sure in all honesty.” She said, “I started with Hampshire in August and then refugee service in the following April.”
107. The witness was asked how she was dealing with the Applicant if he had moved from Hampshire’s area to Liverpool. The witness said she must have done this via WhatsApp for “compassionate reaching out” but that, “I do not remember that in all honesty.”
108. The witness was considerably pressed in cross examination on whether what she saw in the Applicant was inconsistent with him being 17 years of age. She said the Applicant was very bright and personable, but others were not. She said the Applicant had a “lovely temperament”. She said some of the other persons had trauma to deal with too. The witness said that “Perhaps my statement of his needs is understated and he was ambitious and not reflected…”.
109. The witness said that as a social worker who met the Applicant once, on reflection she could have said that as a 17 year old and 8 months person, she was not definitive about his age.
110. She confirmed that in her discussions with the Applicant there was no interpreter. Having provided her witness statement in negative terms, the witness was asked whether it was understandable that the Applicant was off with her after that. She confirmed that was understandable but that he had remained polite and respectful with her.
111. The witness provided other evidence, including in respect of the need to go to foodbanks despite the duty being on Hampshire to provide food for young people.
112. The witness agreed that references attributed to the Applicant such as not wanting to stay with ‘lower social class’ were not actually said by the Applicant at all. These were words attributed to him and were not his own words. Similarly asked about her recording of notes that “you made my mum sad” was said now by the witness to be a mis-recording and not something that the Applicant had said. The witness also referred to the Applicant’s property being in a state of disrepair. It was put to the witness that her brief meetings with the Applicant were not sufficient to enable her to come to the views that she did. The witness said that the Taskira and ID documents were not sufficient because they were not computerised documents and just an estimation of the person’s age by a village elder.
Requirements for Expert Evidence
113. For reasons I refer to below, it is necessary to set out why the duties on experts are important and what those duties are. Duties on experts derive from the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Procedure Rules 2008.
114. The Senior President of Tribunals’ Practice Directions of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal dated 18 December 2018 is of significant importance and must be followed by experts and those who instruct experts in this jurisdiction. It aligns with the procedure followed by the courts in criminal law, civil law and family law jurisdictions. A failure to follow the Practice Direction is likely to mean that the expert evidence is not admitted in evidence or lead to no weight or only very limited weight being attached to such expert evidence. A failure to follow the Practice Direction is also likely lead to admonishment of the expert within the published decision of the Upper Tribunal.
115. The Senior President of the Tribunals’ Practice Direction of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, dated 1 November 2024 is in similar terms to the 2018 Practice Directions
116. Paragraph 10 of the 2018 Practice Direction states,
“10. Expert evidence
10.1. A party who instructs an expert must provide clear and precise instructions to the expert, together with all relevant information concerning the nature of the appellant’s case, including the appellant’s immigration history, the reasons why the appellant’s claim or application has been refused by the respondent and copies of any relevant previous reports prepared in respect of the appellant.
10.2. It is the duty of an expert to help the Tribunal on matters within the expert’s own expertise. This duty is paramount and overrides any obligation to the person from whom the expert has received instructions or by whom the expert is paid.
10.3. Expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced by the pressures of litigation.
10.4. An expert should assist the Tribunal by providing objective, unbiased opinion on matters within his or her expertise, and should not assume the role of an advocate. 10.5. An expert should consider all material facts, including those which might detract from his or her opinion.
10.6. An expert should make it clear: (a) when a question or issue falls outside his or her expertise; and (b) when the expert is not able to reach a definite opinion, for example because of insufficient information.
10.7. If, after producing a report, an expert changes his or her view on any material matter, that change of view should be communicated to the parties without delay, and when appropriate to the Tribunal.
10.8. An expert’s report should be addressed to the Tribunal and not to the party from whom the expert has received instructions.
10.9. An expert’s report must:
(a) give details of the expert’s qualifications;
(b) give details of any literature or other material which the expert has relied on in making the report;
(c) contain a statement setting out the substance of all facts and instructions given to the expert which are material to the opinions expressed in the report or upon which those opinions are based;
(d) make clear which of the facts stated in the report are within the expert’s own knowledge;
(e) say who carried out any examination, measurement or other procedure which the expert has used for the report, give the qualifications of that person, and say whether or not the procedure has been carried out under the expert’s supervision;
(f) where there is a range of opinion on the matters dealt with in the report:
(i) summarise the range of opinion, so far as reasonably practicable, and
(ii) give reasons for the expert’s own opinion;
(g) contain a summary of the conclusions reached;
(h) if the expert is not able to give an opinion without qualification, state the qualification; and
(i) contain a statement that the expert understands his or her duty to the Tribunal and has complied and will continue to comply with that duty.
10.10. An expert’s report must be verified by a Statement of Truth as well as containing the statements required in paragraph 10.9(h) and (i).
10.11. The form of the Statement of Truth is as follows:
“I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in my report are within my own knowledge I have made clear which they are and I believe them to be true, and that the opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinion”.
10.12. The instructions referred to in paragraph 10.9(c) are not protected by privilege but cross-examination of the expert on the contents of the instructions will not be allowed unless the Tribunal permits it (or unless the party who gave the instructions consents to it). Before it gives permission, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to consider that the statement in the report or the substance of the instructions is inaccurate or incomplete. If the Tribunal is so satisfied, it will allow the cross-examination where it appears to be in the interests of justice to do so.”
117. Statements of truth must be signed correctly and accurately. In YSA v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2023] UKUT 75 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal made clear that the Upper Tribunal has the contempt powers of the High Court derived from s.25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
The Applicant’s Expert Evidence
118. The Applicant relied on expert evidence by Antonio Giustozzi. His CV refers to him as obtaining his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and that he has been a visiting professor and research fellow including as a freelance consultant researcher since then. He has extensive experience of matters relating to Afghanistan.
119. Dr Giustozzi provided 3 reports. His first is dated 21 October 2024 and is headed a “verification report”. That report complies with the requirements in respect of expert’s declarations. The report states that:
“I have previously given evidence in legal proceedings, including in the immigration field, both in Great Britain, The Netherlands and Australia. I have in some cases in the past declined to prepare expert reports, where, in my view, the account given jarred with my knowledge and understanding of relevant conditions in Afghanistan or historic events.”
120. Dr Giustozzi also said:
“3. Osbornes provided me with a scan of the Tazkira (see below). Because of the way verification takes place, with the issuing authorities comparing pictures (if any), record numbers, signatures, stamps or any other information contained in the document against the information they hold, the original of the document is not required and a copy suffices.
4. I passed on the copy to my researcher Saleem Safi, based in Kunar. Mr. Saleem Safi is a journalist and researcher, who has participated in projects with me in the past, carrying out interviews with police and Taliban in the area. He always performed satisfactorily and reliably in his tasks. In verification, Mr. Safi often found that the documents or the fact that he was tasked to verify were not genuine, adding to my trust for his work. He uses his contacts with local elders and Taliban developed during past projects, to arrange meetings for verification purposes.
5. Mr. Saleem Safi sought to make enquiries about Mr. Atal’s Tazkira by visiting on 21 October 2024 the Kabul Civil Registration Directorate, located in the northern part of the city, and meeting Mr. Naim Pakteen, the directorate’s head of the inspection department. 310 1
6. Mr. Safi shared the copy of Mr. Atal’s Tazkira with Mr. Pakteen and asked him to confirm its authenticity. Mr. Pakteen took the copy, reviewed it and carried out some checks. After a little while he returned to Mr. Safi and informed him that there a match was found in the records and that the Tazkira is to be considered genuine.”
121. Dr Giustozzi prepared a report dated 21 October 2024 for the Birth Registration Card. He said:
“3. Osbornes provided me with a scan of the birth certificate (see below). Because of the way verification takes place, with the issuing authorities comparing pictures (if any), record numbers, signatures, stamps or any other information contained in the document against the information they hold, the original of the document is not required and a copy suffices.
4. I passed on the copy to my researcher Saleem Safi, based in Kunar. Mr. Saleem Safi is a journalist and researcher, who has participated in projects with me in the past, carrying out interviews with police and Taliban in the area. He always performed satisfactorily and reliably in his tasks. In verification, Mr. Safi often found that the documents or the fact that he was tasked to verify were not genuine, adding to my trust for his work. He uses his contacts with local elders and Taliban developed during past projects, to arrange meetings for verification purposes.
5. Mr. Saleem Safi sought to make enquiries about Mr. Atal’s birth certificate by visiting on 21 October 2024 the Afghan Medical Council in Shahr e Naw of Kabul. Mr. Safi notes that because the certificate does not mention the place of birth, the only option was visiting the Council.
6. At the Council Mr. Safi was met by Dr. Hafiz Muhamedi, a member of the Afghan Medical Council. Mr. Safi shared the copy of the certificate and asked Dr. Muhamedi to check it against the records and confirm whether it is genuine or not. Dr. Muhamedi took the copy to the relevant department and after a while, he came back, informing Mr. Safi that a match had been found and that the certificate was determined to be genuine.”
122. The Respondent sought further particulars from Dr Giustozzi. The Respondent asked written questions dated 13 February 2026. Dr Giustozzi replied to those questions on 9 March 2026. He stated as follows:
“1. I was asked by Osbornes Solicitors to respond to the following questions by the Respondent: Do you agree that you are unable yourself to confirm the truth of anything that Mr. Saleem Safi has told you. In particular do you agree that you cannot yourself confirm the truth of paragraph 6 of either report.
Do you further agree that Mr Safi himself would be unable to confirm the truth of what he claims to have been told by Mr Pakteen or Dr Muhamedi.
2. I am not a direct witness of what Mr. Safi did and of the discussions he held in Kabul and I can only convey what he reported to me. Neither Mr. Pakteen nor Dr. Muhamedi showed the originals in the archives to Mr. Safi, so he had to rely on what they told him.
123. The Applicant has relied on the expert evidence of Dr Jawad Hassan Zadeh. He has provided a very lengthy CV. He has also referred within his CV to various unreported cases. These include cases at the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in which he has provided expert reports.
124. Dr Zadeh provided an original report and a first addendum report and then a second addendum. He also attended to provide oral evidence before me.
125. Dr Zadeh’s report of 16 September 2024 dealt with matters that he was not asked to deal with. Such as whether the Applicant was even an Afghan national. Dr Zadeh appears to have arranged for his assistant (also referred to as co-expert by Dr Zadeh) Palwasha Latif to interview the Applicant to check the Applicant’s “fluency, accent and dialect”.
126. Dr Zadeh’s first report concluded:
“Based on the above detailed tests and observations; having compared the Birth Certificate and Taskira issued to [MA] with the right comparative samples; having interviewed him over video call with my co-expert colleague, and after carrying forensic examinations to verify questioned documents; both documents issued to [MA] display the correct hallmarks, correct components, and the correct attributes of genuine documents issued by the Islamic Republic if Afghanistan. In my expert opinion, both documents are genuine.”
127. Following the first addendum report dated 4 February 2026, the Respondent then asked a number of written questions arising out of Dr Zadeh’s reports. Dr Zadeh provided the answers to those questions in a second addendum report dated 10 April 2026. Some of Dr Zadeh’s second addendum said amongst other things that he had prepared some 1,562 expert reports and that he had given evidence in 500 cases in the UK and abroad. He said he had prepared 306 reports in the past 24 months and 50 reports for Osbornes Solicitors, being the solicitors retained by the Applicant in this case.
128. Asked why Dr Zadeh had provided legal submissions within his original report. Dr Zadeh said in response:
“Answer: I have received many Home Office determinations of my own expert reports or I have read expert reports written by other experts operating in the UK. I also mentor other experts and they seek my advice on certain issues. The section Hampshire Council calls 'legal submissions' concern case summaries of the case-law relevant to expert document authentication. These summaries have been added over a long period of time, where I felt it was good practice that they be addressed. I have 26 years of practical experience in English law through interpreting work in the UK court settings, years of research of Afghanistan laws and I have undertaken two Certificate courses on English legal system and Human Rights Law at the St. Georges City, University of London. I am well-placed to provide a summary of case-law that is related to my work. The treatment of documents and expert evidence by the Courts is relevant and, in my view, appropriate to reference.”
129. Dr Zadeh was asked a question about “writing standards” in the following way and Dr Zadeh responded as follows:
“Q8): Of paragraph 39, you state that you have assessed the documents for "writing standards known to belong to the government of Afghanistan" Please explain how the government of Afghanistan has handwriting standards and how you have established what they were at the relevant times.
Answer: Afghanistan's administrations use Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Pashto, and English languages to issue different documents. The lexical terms used in each administration also differs. I have handled Afghan documents for the past 32 years in all my jobs in Afghanistan and in the United Kingdom, and have attained literacy in Afghanistan's languages through dozens of UK-issued qualifications, which has enabled me to become familiar with "writing standards that belong to the government of Afghanistan." The skills and qualifications which have aided me do this are translation qualifications, interpreting qualifications, handwriting analysis trainings, and my most recent MA in Applied and Forensic Linguistics. I hold years of continuous experience in interpreting for the Home Office in the UK as well.”
130. Asked how Dr Zadeh concluded that the Taskira was genuine the following question and answer were provided by him:
“Q25): Please explain on what basis you conclude that the document shown at figure is genuine rather than false.
Answer: Please refer to my initial expert report. It has been explained in paragraphs and 30 pages of information.”
131. In respect of a different case in which Dr Zadeh and his colleague were referred to by the High Court, the following question and answer was set out:
“Q28): Please explain why you continue to offer opinions on facial mapping when you were held not competent to give evidence on this issue in R otao MS v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin) (paragraph 22.1).
Answer: In the above-named case, I and my colleague Palwasha had stated a phrase that the judge believed was not within our expertise. However, even in that case, except the phrase for confirming that "the person we interviewed resembled the photos on his ID documents," the judge agreed with (or did not exclude) the other expert opinions expressed therein. This was a case in which I had stated an opinion on a photograph and resemblance to the document holder. When I and my colleague interview individuals like [MA], it is for the sake of investigating forgery, impersonation (pretending to have a different nationality), counterfeiting and forgery. Please refer to the contents and all the assessments made in the expert report dated 16 September 2024. I have not undertaken facial mapping nor have I asserted expertise in this area.”
132. In respect of whether or not Dr Zadeh had been partisan, the question and answer was as follows:
“Please respond to the suggestion that your report is unsatisfactory and partisan piece of work, that it has failed properly to examine the documents, that is fails to grapple adequately or at all with obvious criticisms or reservations that can be made of the documents, that it expresses opinions on matters in which you have been told you have no expertise, and that for all of these reasons no weight at all should be put on it in judicial decision making.
Answer: I have followed the law regulating the work of experts in the United Kingdom, considered the relevant case-law, followed professional guidelines of forensic examination associations which have held me to be an expert with good standing since 2012. I have followed ethical considerations like taking extra care that people not entitled to Afghan documents do not cheat the asylum system, interviewed the document owner and involved a professional colleague. Lastly, I have reached a professional conclusion that has not been challenged by an alternative forensic examination report. I have no reasons to change my expert opinion as no new evidence is presented to me for re-consideration. It is noteworthy whilst writing that in 1,562 expert reports I have written to 350 firms in countries, in no single case, my expertise has ever been identified as lacking, improper or invalid. An expert report written by me in April 2026 contains dozens of recommendations of judges and asylum decisions makers in the United Kingdom, which I have found as a beacon to my success and professional and personal endeavours in life. My work has never been partisan.”
133. I refer to some of Dr Zadeh’s oral evidence. His evidence was lengthy because it was the subject of detailed cross examination. The evidence was over the course of 2 days to accommodate other witnesses and because Dr Zadeh was due to give evidence at the First-tier Tribunal in a different case. There were several instances of me reminding Dr Zadeh to answer the questions being asked. Dr Zadeh was not always able to remain focused on the questions and unfortunately, he was also occasionally somewhat dismissive of the questions being asked of him.
134. Mr Hocking put to Dr Zadeh that that an impartial expert had to highlight both the matters which tend to support that documents being examined are reliable but the report should also refer to those parts which are unreliable. Dr Zadeh said that he did not deny that forgery of documents exists in Afghanistan but because he did not consider the documents he examined in this case to be unreliable, then he did not need to say there were aspects which showed the documents were unreliable.
135. Mr Hocking pressed Dr Zadeh to explain why he had not said in his first report that that there was an earlier Taskira and not only the one which he had examined for the purposes of the report. Dr Zadeh’s explanation was that “I did not mention school age and how old the person could be because Afghanistan does not have education law like England and they have gone to school. They have legislation and it is not in force. It takes a lot of space and it is irrelevant. It has no relation to me as a forensic investigator.”. Dr Zadeh said further that, “As to why Taskira number 1 was not mentioned. I can set out a lot of things and there is a judgment. But I cannot say so much information which was not relevant. I did not write this at the time. I was assessing: I had knowledge of it and understood it.”
136. Dr Zadeh disagreed that he was being an advocate. Dr Zadeh said he did not agree that there was confirmation bias on his part. Mr Hocking said that he was not suggesting that Dr Zadeh had deliberately misreported matters but that that he had not been open minded when approaching his task as an expert. Dr Zadeh said it was “an incorrect accusation”. Dr Zadeh also disagreed that he had usurped the role of the judge and he said he did not agree. He said he had used “forensic investigation and I have used techniques”. It was put to Dr Zadeh that his report said things such as “I have found” but it was not for him as an expert to make findings and only to report. Dr Zadeh said he disagreed with Mr Hocking and that things were being taken out of context.
137. It was put to Dr Zadeh that there were 3 ways in which a document might be unreliable:
(1) It was not made by the person purported to have made it;
(2) It was made by the person purported to have made it, but then it was altered afterwards; and
(3) It was made by a proper official but it contains incorrect information whether because of a mistake or corruption.
138. It was put to Dr Zadeh that his report only dealt with the first 2 categories. Dr Zadeh was asked why his report did not deal with the third possibility of there being an unreliable document. Dr Zadeh said he thought that there were only 2 categories and that they were interlinked. He said, “experts only address the data in favour of a case or against a case”. Dr Zadeh then went off on a tangent to tell me that there are 8 types of Taskira and spent time explaining them.
139. Dr Zadeh insisted that inspecting scanned copies of the documents as opposed to the originals did not reduce his confidence in the documents being genuine. He said, in effect, that whereas photographs of documents might lose ability to forensically examine for authenticity, scans did not. He said that was because the visible elements remained to be examined. Dr Zadeh did not agree that an age of a document could necessarily be examined from a paper document. As I understood it, he was saying that some persons put important documents safely away and so they do not have the ‘wear and tear’ that older documents might have if they were being handled frequently.
140. Asked what ‘forensic tool’ Dr Zadeh said he was using; it turned out this was the Acrobat Reader programme. He referred to 2 of his trainers having worked for the USA’s FBI.
141. Dr Zadeh insisted that even though there were limitations to his report because he had been provided with scanned documents and not originals, he insisted that the documents were genuine and authentically issued documents. He then said, “based on my examination until someone proves me wrong. I am not saying they are inauthentic or fake. I am not saying one million percent.”
142. Various permutations of how documents could corruptly have been stolen or blank documents stolen and filled in later were put to Dr Zadeh but he disagreed. He said the documents had the hallmarks of being genuine documents.
143. It was put to Dr Zadeh that he had failed to say that the Taskira he had examined was a reissued document. Dr Zadeh merely responded to say that he did not have a scan or the original of the first Taskira and so he did not comment on it.
144. Mr Hocking put to Dr Zadeh that it seemed such an obvious point that any expert properly doing his job would have said “(1) I am aware it is a reissued Taskira and (2) it is in the correct form” Dr Zadeh’s reply was “I did not say that because I did not have evidence of the first Taskira. It is outside of professional documents.”
145. When it was put to Dr Zadeh that the reason he did not say that the Taskira was reissued was because he did not know it was reissued, Dr Zadeh said, “I disagree with that. I totally disagree with that.”.
146. It was put to Dr Zadeh that he had not have given a satisfactory answer why he had not said in his report that it was a reissued Taskira. He said, “I disagree with other cases and formal and not in other cases” but which I did not understand.
147. Dr Zadeh said he was not clear with whom he had spoken at the Applicant’s solicitors office. He said he had received “Different means of instructions, a letter of instruction and e-mail and calls”. Asked if he would provide those e-mails and notes of the telephone calls, Dr Zadeh gave an unclear answer. He said at length about GDPR requiring him to destroy telephone notes after 6 months. He said that someone had told him that.
148. Dr Zadeh was also pressed on why he had taken it upon himself to go further than his instructions to interview the Applicant. He said he did so to establish the authenticity of the instructions and so “I interviewed the owner”. If I understood him correctly, Dr Zadeh said he had worked as an interpreter in 2000 cases, but he also mentioned 5000 cases. He said he was still working as an interpreter. He said Mrs Latif “is assisting me as a co-expert”.
149. Dr Zadeh said he cannot go to Afghanistan and that he was last there in 2007. He said, “I get information in hundreds of different ways”. He said he had handled several hundred Taskira since being in the UK.
150. In re-examination, Dr Zadeh, said, “I am not saying I have checked the truth of the information written in it. I am sorry for using the wrong word.”
151. Dr Zadeh was asked about a decision of Mr Justice Pepperell in respect of a case in which Dr Zadeh also provided an expert report. Dr Zadeh said he did not agree with Ms Benfield that he was not entitled to give his expert option on photographs. Dr Zadeh was referred to question and answer 28 of his second addendum report which stated:
”Q28): Please explain why you continue to offer opinions on facial mapping when you were held not competent to give evidence on this issue in Rotao MS v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin) (paragraph 22.1).
Answer: In the above-named case, I and my colleague Palwasha had stated a phrase that the judge believed was not within our expertise. However, even in that case, except the phrase for confirming that "the person we interviewed resembled the photos on his ID documents," the judge agreed with (or did not exclude) the other expert opinions expressed therein. This was a case in which I had stated an opinion on a photograph and resemblance to the document holder. When I and my colleague interview individuals like [MA], it is for the sake of investigating forgery, impersonation (pretending to have a different nationality), counterfeiting and forgery. Please refer to the contents and all the assessments made in the expert report dated 16 September”
152. Dr Zadeh provided further evidence in respect of the resolution of scans and copies. He referred at length to photocopiers and to the documents but he was not always entirely clear or focused on the questions.
153. Dr Zadeh said, “I would say: to best of my knowledge, I have completed the assignment and job. Those doubts if you are referring and the type of questions… a lot of them are imaginary things and most I can deal with. I am not super human and I am fallible like anyone else. To my knowledge I have assessed everything possible and abided by the rules based on what I understood at the time.”
154. Asked by Ms Benfield about his instructions for this case. Dr Zadeh said that it was his understanding of what he had learned about “security of training and lots of training from various sources and government and police and Red Cross…I just thought until today that documents must not be kept.”
155. Dr Zadeh set out examples of cases in which he would not prepare an expert report.
156. Asked if now reflecting whether as an expert he should have said that it was a second Taskira, Dr Zadeh said, “I do not think it is right to assess impartiality”. He said, “I wrote an expert report like that and it was sent to the Netherlands and 120 pages. I have the ability when you can establish the veracity with 5 pages and so why use 100 pages? What difference could it make to my conclusion”. Dr Zadeh added, “I do not see professionally I would change anything. The fact that it is first, second, third Taskira is not relevant to the forensic examination. I would only make mention if I had the first Taskira.”
Analysis of the Evidence
157. I consider the expert evidence first because it is generally the case that expert evidence is to be used as a tool in assessing credibility and the claim as a whole.
158. I return to Dr Zadeh’s evidence. I acknowledge that Dr Zadeh has set out that he has complied with duties placed on experts. Those duties are there to ensure that errors are not made in the assessment of cases. Courts and Tribunals depend on experts to provide clear, impartial and complete evidence. There have been too many instances in the past of experts not being independent and impartial in their approach.
159. Mr Hocking provided me with written closing submissions prior to him addressing me. He set out his submissions in respect of Dr Zadeh at some length. Those submissions are of some importance and so I refer to them. Part of the Respondent submissions in respect of Dr Zadeh’s evidence in the closing note are as follows:
“As to Dr Zadeh: his evidence is completely unreliable and should be rejected. He appears not to understand the role of an expert. He expected the Tribunal to accept his conclusions and felt that he should not be questioned (see HB 394 para 104 “I have found the documents issued to [MA] to be genuine documents. There is no other expert opinion before the parties or the Tribunal” and SB 93 “raising concerns about documents that have been forensically examined and are found to be genuine cannot be backed up by evidence. It is just an incorrect generalisation.”
His oral evidence was combative in the extreme, in a way that was wholly inappropriate for a supposedly impartial expert assisting the Tribunal. He was unable either to accept or to give a coherent rebuttal of even the most obvious shortcoming of his work. For example, it is obvious that the inability to examine an original document is a more serious limitation that Dr Zadeh allowed…
His work was defective. He did not highlight matters that he should have highlighted to inform the Tribunal’s assessment of the documents. For example, the question of whether the taskira is truly a reissued document is obviously important. There is a problem with the date on the taskira exhibited: it postdates when MA says he started school. That is an issue calling out for investigation. The first and second reports do not mention this at all. His third report declares that there is specific wording that can be found on a reissued taskira (HB 386 41) but does not say if it is to be found in this taskira. In oral evidence he said for the first time that it was (although from the translation he then gave, the Respondent invites the Tribunal to disbelieve that evidence). Why not having seen the “first” taskira was a reason not to refer to this supposedly distinctive wording in the second taskira in any report, as Dr Zadeh repeatedly asserted, makes no sense at all…
He is far too easily pleased. The fact that the Claimant knows what the documents say is barely relevant to whether they are reliable HB 298 para 57...
He exaggerated his testing, for example referring to enlarging a scan in acrobat reader as “using forensic tools/software” HB 301 para 79.
He has overstepped the bounds of his role and instructions in carrying out a linguistic analysis that was not requested or needed (no one has ever suggested the Claimant is not from Afghanistan and even if he was not it would not affect the reliability of the document, only the question of whether it related to the Claimant1) HB 306 para 80 et seq, and continuing to offer opinions about photographs despite a specific indication from a high court judge that he was not qualified to do so HB 298 para 60…
The Respondent says that these shortcomings are so serious that Dr Zadeh cannot be said to have discharged his duties as an expert at all.
160. I find myself having to agree with some of the submissions made by the Respondent. The submissions went even further, but I am not in agreement with those parts.
161. In my judgment, Dr Zadeh was so combative in responses to straightforward questions which were put to him that it was necessary for me to remind him of his role and his duties as an expert on more than one occasion. Despite that, Dr Zadeh continued in the same manner. Whilst I appreciate that Dr Zadeh has told me on numerous occasions that he has completed thousands of reports and has given evidence in hundreds of cases, it is surprising he is not much more aware what reporting and providing evidence as an expert entails. It must be that Dr Zadeh has only ever provided evidence in a small number of age dispute judicial review cases. If Dr Zadeh had provided evidence in ‘hundreds of cases’ previously then he would know that his performance before me is not how experts should present their evidence to a court or tribunal.
162. By way of example, considerable time was spent attempting to ask Dr Zadeh to explain why did not say in his report that he was examining a re-issued Taskira. Dr Zadeh appears to have taken offence at this and then sought to ‘blind with science’ by his continual references to how he is an expert with vast experience having prepared thousands of reports for thousands of cases. Indeed, he told me about cases he has been involved in the USA and the Netherlands. With the greatest respect to Dr Zadeh, he failed to answer simple and straightforward questions. Admitting to inadvertent omissions and making concessions is part of what the court expects of all witnesses. Especially when another way of working or interpreting things is put to them. More so when that witness is an expert witness. Dr Zadeh’s refusal and indeed his rather ‘passive aggressive’ approach to answering questions spoke volumes to me.
163. It is with regret that I conclude that much of what Dr Zadeh was saying to me came to this: He is the expert. He knows what is genuine and what is not. his Therefore his evidence must be accepted. In my judgment Dr Zadeh considered this to so because is an experienced expert. I do not accept Dr Zadeh’s approach.
164. If Dr Zadeh does not know already, then he will be aware following this hearing that the better and more helpful expert witnesses are those who do not take offence at challenges to their reports. They are the ones who instead take the time to patiently explain their methodology, their expertise and their reasons. Put another way, they explain to the layperson what their ‘working out’ is. In this case though, Dr Zadeh in reality sought to present me with an answer but he was not prepared to deal appropriately with probing and questions about the ‘working out’ which led to the answers. Where Dr Zadeh did provide answers, they were largely incoherent or circular. Such as that he knew that the documents were genuine because he had interviewed the Applicant in terms of the Applicant’s language skills and where he hailed from in Afghanistan. The problem being that there was no issue between the parties that the Applicant hailed from Afghanistan and spoke the languages spoken in Afghanistan. The parties had not even asked Dr Zadeh to deal with language or from where in Afghanistan the Applicant hailed from. It still remains baffling to me why a “co-expert” and Dr Zadeh subjected the Applicant to their ‘interview’.
165. I did not get a satisfactory answer to why the Latif/Zadeh co-reporting came about in the first place. I know it is mentioned obliquely in correspondence. As Mr Hocking has said, Pepperell J had found this aspect of Dr Zadeh’s approach to his expert duties troublesome and I do too.
166. I am conscious that Dr Zadeh has a livelihood and he has informed me that apart from preparing thousands of expert reports, he to the present date undertakes interpreter work. Experts know full well that if they fail in their duties as experts then they will be the subject of public rebuke. It is with regret that I conclude that Dr Zadeh albeit not deliberately, has allowed himself to be seduced by unconscious bias. He has not presented all the alternatives within his report and instead has jumped to answers. For example, he would not accept, initially at least, that it was a possibility that the ID documents were obtained from genuine sources but from corrupt officials. I do not know why Dr Zadeh refused to accept that as a possibility. It shows to me Dr Zadeh’s closed mind approach.
167. I have attempted to see if it is possible to separate any parts of Dr Zadeh’s evidence which might be possible to take into account, but having reflected on matters, I conclude that it is not possible to do so without getting into difficulty. I simply do not know how much reliance I can place on Dr Zadeh’s evidence when there are so many issues which arise. In my judgment the whole purpose of the duties on experts is that a judge should not have to dissect the reports and evidence of the expert to attempt to piece together for themselves what might possibly remain reliable. I am fortified in my view because when I look at some of Dr Zadeh’s CV, his selective reference to some of the cases in which his name has been mentioned reads much more like a marketing puff rather and not an expert’s CV to be taken seriously. I vividly recall the oral evidence when Dr Zadeh referred to his ‘forensic tools’ which turned out to merely to be Acrobat Reader. A programme which millions of us have. Hardly a ‘forensic tool’ in my judgment.
168. In my judgment the consequence of Dr Zadeh’s approach is such that I can give no weight to his written or oral evidence. I therefore exclude it from my consideration of the case.
169. I do stress that I place no blame on the Applicant’s solicitors for the situation which has arisen. The Applicant’s solicitors quite properly instructed an expert who said he would and who said he did comply with his expert duties. Indeed, Dr Zadeh was an expert who had said he had prepared many reports before.
170. There was also expert evidence from Dr Giustozzi. The Respondent had the opportunity to have him called as a witness to be cross examined. The Respondent declined that opportunity. The Respondent had asked written questions of Dr Giustozzi. I have referred to the evidence above. Dr Giustozzi has a researcher based in Kunar called Mr Saleem Safi. He is a journalist and researcher. Dr Giustozzi states that, “He always performed satisfactorily and reliably in his tasks. In verification, Mr. Safi often found that the documents or the fact that he was tasked to verify were not genuine, adding to my trust for his work.” Mr Safi had visited the Kabul Civil Registration Directorate. He met with Mr Naim Pakteen, the head of the Directorate’s inspection department. A copy of MA’s Taskira was provided. The head of the Directorate reviewed the document and carried out some checks. A match was found in the records and the Taskira was considered to be genuine.
171. In my judgment, this is evidence which I can consider in the round with the other evidence.
172. In respect of the Birth Registration Card, Mr Saleem Safi visited the Afghan Medical Council. There he spoke with Dr Hafiz Muhamedi, a member of the Afghan Medical Council. A copy of the Birth Registration Card was taken to the relevant department and after a while Dr Muhamedi said that the match had been found and the Birth Registration Certificate was genuine.
173. I also consider this evidence in the round.
174. Mr Hocking submits that Dr Giustozzi was reliant on what Mr Saleem Safi had told him and that neither Mr Pakteen nor Dr Muhamedi showed the originals to Mr Saleem Safi. That is correct because that is what Dr Giustozzi states in response to the written questions asked of him.
175. Mr Hocking states in his written closing submissions that:
“Dr Giustozzi’s evidence (HB 310-313, HB 332-335, and HB 362) is accepted as true in so far as it related to things he himself can give evidence on, namely that he provided scans of the documents to Mr Safi, and that Mr Safi told Dr Giustozzi that he had taken the documents to the government offices referred to, spoken to an official there, and the official had told him that the document was genuine”
176. Mr Hocking also states though that:
“What is not accepted is that Mr Safi was telling the truth, or, if he was, whether the officials he spoke to had in fact carried out proper checks and were telling the truth, or, if they were telling the truth, whether that necessarily indicates the documents are reliable. Completely lacking is any confirmation from Mr Safi himself, or any confirmation from the government offices, or any explanation for why either of those two things could not be provided. Therefore, the Tribunal is asked to discount this evidence entirely.
In the alternative, one possibility for the documents being unreliable is that they have been obtained from official sources but are inaccurate, for example through corruption. Dr Giustozzi’s evidence does not explain whether his checks would or would not have ruled out that possibility and so again is not of great assistance to the Tribunal.”
177. In my judgment, despite the caution and guidance from the decision in Tanveer Ahmed, the Respondent’s submission that Mr Saleem Safi was not telling the truth or that the officials spoken to were not telling the truth is fanciful. In my judgment, Dr Giustozzi’s evidence is clear that he has relied on Mr Saleem Safi, a researcher and journalist, to undertake the tasks. Mr Saleem Safi has provided the names of the individuals that he spoke with and sought the checks of the documents from. Although I accept that corruption exists in Afghanistan, including with official documentation, the Respondent’s submissions have no evidential foundation. What the Respondent submits amounts to suggesting that there is some form of conspiracy that Dr Giustozzi has allowed himself to be duped into by Mr Saleem Safi who had made up that he has undertaken checks with officials in Afghanistan.
178. Perhaps the Respondent’s submissions go further that the named officials are corrupt and have just made up that they made the checks they said had, but in fact they did not. That would be a curious situation because Mr Saleem Safi could just as easily have said that the checks proved negative and he would still have undertaken the task expected of him. I am unable to follow why Mr Saleem Safi would go to the trouble to visit the 2 official locations; have the names of the persons he spoke with but to somehow have made all of that up.
179. Whilst there is a remote possibility that the officials for some unknown reason did not actually make the checks that they say they did, against the background of Dr Giustozzi’s trust in his sources and in Mr Saleem Safim, even that remote possibility seems fanciful. I do take into account that Dr Giustozzi was not asked by the Respondent to attend to provide oral evidence for the more nuanced approach to the document verification.
180. I have considered the submissions in respect of the Birth Registration Card having no mention of the place of birth. It is clear to me the Afghan Medical Council had the confirmation details and they provided them to Mr Saleem Safi. There is a ‘blank’ on the certificate as to whether it was presented to the Department of Civil Registration but Mr Saleem Safi was able to visit the Afghan Medical Council in Kabul to obtain the necessary confirmation. I note Mr Hocking’s submissions on this aspect but in my judgment the overwhelming evidence is that the Afghan Medical Council was able to confirm the authenticity of the certificate. A more nuanced submission was made to me on this aspect. Dr Giustozzi was not given the opportunity to deal with it, but it is another matter I take into account.
181. I turn then to the Respondent’s evidence from Ms Victoria Simmonds. Unfortunately, it is necessary to say that her evidence was poor and one-sided. If I have understood the Respondent’s approach to her evidence correctly, then there is no great reliance by the Respondent on that evidence in any event.
182. Ms Simmonds had no real experience in dealing with age assessments and she moved to kinship social work after her period working with refugees with Hampshire Council. Whilst I accept that providing evidence can make people nervous, even those who are professionals, the evidence initially was so confusing that Ms Simmonds did not even know if the dates she had provided in her witness statement were accurate because she could not recall when she had met with the Applicant and when she had prepared her witness statement.
183. Ms Simmond was a newly qualified social worker. I accept that one has to start a career, but Ms Simmonds did not even undertake basic fairness tasks such as to have an interpreter when discussing matters with the Applicant and she did not make contemporaneous notes. It is surprising to say the least why she felt it necessary to give a “definitive view” about the Applicant’s age when that was not called for. The extensive cross examination about the e-mails was surprising evidence. There is something underlying why Ms Simmonds did and said what she did and I am unable to pinpoint it precisely, but it is clear to me that Ms Simmonds took a biased approach.
184. I turn next to the Respondent’s age assessment. I conclude that there are several deficiencies with it.
185. Firstly, the Respondent had conducted an earlier age assessment and withdrew it. Yet the second age assessors still read the first age assessment. This was bound to have influenced the second age assessment. As Ms Benfield states,
“There is specific reference in the age assessment to the detail of what MA was recorded to have said in the first withdrawn assessment, by way of example:
a. When discussing MA’s age when he left Afghanistan the social workers said “In the last assessment you were unable to tell the assessors how old you were when you left Afghanistan, but now you can remember this is a worrying inconsistency” [D478]. This point is again repeated in the minded to session when it was put to MA “You told the previous Age assessors you did not know your age when you left Afghanistan, however you alter said you were 13 when you left” [D489].
b. When discussing how old MA was when he got his Tazkira the social workers said “But in the last Age assessment you told the assessors you were 6 when you were issued this” [D478].
c. In the minded to, the social workers are recorded to have said “During your last age assessment you were challenged on your Tazkira making you age 10, which would mean you started school at 10” [D489].
d. On the Tazkira, the social workers then said to MA “There is no mention of the 2nd Taskira throughout the age assessment and this is recorded verbatim” [D489].
e. In the first minded to session, the social workers said “In the first age assessment you stated you started school age 7, not age 6. Why has this changed?” [D487].”
186. As Ms Benfield submits, and with which I entirely agree, the difficulty which arises from the social workers erroneous approach was articulated in R (GE)(Eritrea) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1406 (Admin) at [§90]:
“I am troubled too that the second age assessors were made aware that previous assessments of GE's age had found her to be older than 18. As this was the crucial question which the assessors were themselves to consider - a difficult enough exercise in any circumstances, but particularly in a case such as this where GE possessed no documentation of any kind - I see no good reason for providing this information to the assessors: the 14 risks of introducing unconscious bias, and compromising the independence of the assessors' own conclusions, seem to me to be obvious.”
187. The problems continue with age assessment because the age assessors failed to take Shona Walne’s evidence or Dr Giustozzi’s evidence into account. It is not clear why the age assessors failed to do so but that was a serious omission. This evidence could have made a difference if the age assessors had factored it in their decision.
188. I am also troubled by the reasoning of the age assessors whereby despite knowing that physical appearance is an unreliable indicator of age, they nonetheless relied heavily on physical appearance anyway. They also relied on photographs which included a very small Home Office black and white photograph. That was not a good indicator of age in any event.
189. In my judgment these errors in the age assessment were of such a fundamental nature that it affects the veracity of the age assessment as a whole. I have derived no real benefit from the age assessment in terms of assessing the Applicant’s age.
190. I deal then with the Applicant’s own evidence. I had the benefit of seeing him sit opposite me during the 4 day hearing. Whilst I am well aware of the caution in respect of demeanour and physical appearance, it is worth stating that the Applicant is small, his build is small and he has dark hair with no facial hair. I have been shown various photographs taken of him and I can see that his build has always been small and that he is short in those photographs too. Some of the photographs were taken by the local authority. None of this is decisive. It is a description of what I saw.
191. I heard from the Applicant through an interpreter. The Equal Treatment Bench Book makes clear that even when a witness can speak some English it is advisable in formal settings, such as for a court hearing, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding in what is being said or asked. For that reason, even though the Applicant did occasionally appear to want to speak in English, I reminded him to speak in his language.
192. My observations of the Applicant during his evidence was that he appeared somewhat frustrated at some of the questions because they had been asked of him so many times previously. Including in the 2 age assessments over numerous days, by staff at the local authority and by others, including for the purpose of preparing his witness statements. I had to remind the Applicant at one stage to focus on the questions and to put his frustration to one side.
193. My impression of the Applicant was also that he wished to provide such assistance as he was able to the questions being asked, albeit he occasionally showed frustration in being asked what he thought were the same questions in a different guise.
194. In my judgment, the Applicant provided evidence which was largely consistent with what he has said previously. Indeed, when recounting events, it is rare that a witness will remember everything precisely in the way they had explained it previously. Especially when a witness is recounting several years of history from when they were aged 6.
195. I am well aware though that a witness can rehearse evidence and can present themselves in a way which gives the impression that they are telling the truth even though they are not. Therefore, whilst I conclude that there is nothing of any significance which is inconsistent with the Applicant’s evidence or that there is a glaring omission, I conclude that I cannot make a decision on the Applicant’s age on the Applicant’s evidence alone.
196. I therefore consider the other evidence alongside the Applicant’s evidence.
197. The evidence of the 3 professional witnesses who gave evidence was compelling. In my judgment, Mr Hocking asked relevant questions of each of the 3 professional witnesses. He was right to do so because their evidence was first hand observations of the Applicant over relatively lengthy periods of time. Their observations were of the Applicant in every day situations. Such as in the placement. It is difficult to continue with a pretence over days, weeks and months.
198. Whilst the professional witnesses are not age assessors, they each have extensive experience of working with children and young people. Whilst I accept Mr Hocking’s underlying submission that the professional witnesses were not looking to assess age and it was their job to offer services, the witnesses provided compelling evidence that in fact they would have sought assistance if they had ever thought that the Applicant was aged more than his claimed age.
199. Therefore whilst I accept Mr Hocking is correct that some of the evidence of not being able to care for himself can also be explicable by the Applicant being unfamiliar with the way things work in the UK and he was a new arrival to the UK, the depth and detail of the professional witnesses of the sheer number of things they observed over a lengthy period of time in which the Applicant needed help and reassurance suggests to me that the Applicant is of a young age.
200. I have referred to the professional witnesses in detail above. I accept their evidence. It was clear, open minded and presented professionally and impartially. Each of the witnesses made concessions where necessary, such as that some of their observations could have been because the Applicant was unfamiliar with things and not because he was young. What particularly stood out was Ms Mary Matasva’s evidence that she did not accept at face value what she was being told and was not there as a friend to the Applicant. If she had concerns about the Applicant’s age then she would have raised those concerns. Both Ms Matasva and the other professional witnesses were clear that their safeguarding duties for the other young people in their accommodation made it essential that they spoke up if they thought that the Applicant was felt by them to be an adult or if he was displaying behaviours as an adult. In my judgment the lengthy observations of the Applicant by each of these witnesses is strong and independent evidence of the Applicant’s age.
201. Bringing all of the evidence together the evidence of Dr Giustozzi is reliable evidence that the Taskira and Birth Registration Certificate are genuine documents. I accept the evidence that Mr Saleem Safi made the checks at that he spoke with the two separate officials. I accept too that the officials confirmed with him that the documents were in accordance with the copies had provided. I accept too though that there is a remote possibility that the officials in Afghanistan merely told Mr Saleem Safi what he wanted to hear and did not make the necessary checks at all. I therefore consider the remaining evidence.
202. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that he did not know his precise age when he left Afghanistan because it was not something that which was important to him or his family. His mother is illiterate and so his paternal uncle. Birthdays and similar events to mark age are not something that this family did in Afghanistan.
203. The Applicant had a long journey over a long period of time from Afghanistan to the UK. I accept that the Applicant remained in Belgium for some time and that when there he was sent copies of his Taskira and Birth Registration Card by his paternal uncle to his mobile telephone via WhatsApp. The Applicant also had Facebook social media. Whilst the evidence has not been entirely satisfactory about provenance in terms of the transmission of documents, I conclude that it is more than likely that travelling through various countries and across the Channel would not make it easy to retain possessions, even mobile telephones and for them to then work for months and years without issue. We all know from our own electronic devices that they need repair or replacing from time to time and that things such as battery life begin to diminish.
204. Whilst I have considered the submissions and cross examination that it is not likely that the Applicant was required to have a new Taskira after the first Taskira, I conclude that the error in the Applicant’s father’s name in the first Taskira when he was aged 6 or 7 for school registration purposes was not initially an issue raised by the Applicant’s school, but that later at age around 10 the school had wanted this to be corrected. The Applicant’s description of having gone with his father in a vehicle to Kabul and meeting the “well dressed man” is not something that could have been easily made up by him.
205. What also initially seemed to be irrelevant evidence about the fortified biscuits provided by UNICEF now seems particularly persuasive to me. I can see that before children were given these fortified biscuits, UNICEF and the school wished to ensure that they were given only to those whose records appear to match or to be correct. That thereby alerted the school to the error and so the Applicant was required to go with his father to have his Taskira amended. Once at the offices, the officials told the Applicant that the Taskira could not be amended but instead a new Taskira was required. The Applicant’s description of having to go to a shop to have his photographs taken and then to provide them to the ‘petition writers’ is detailed evidence which appears to me to be wholly convincing. I therefore conclude that there were good reasons why the Taskira was reissued and I accept the evidence that it was reissued.
206. The Applicant’s journey is not an unusual one and one that the Upper Tribunal hears very frequently, even from teenagers. The Upper Tribunal has cases transferred to it from the High Court because of its experience in dealing with protection claims and the journeys that applicants might make.
207. Whilst the Applicant was cross examined at some length about his work at the mechanics, considering what he actually explained was that he worked there in the mornings before going to school in the afternoon. He assisted with passing things and working on tyres. Whilst the Applicant was young and doing work which we would only expect of a 15 or 16 year old in this country, again work in war torn countries by boys when learning the job as a mechanic or farmer or the like is not uncommon.
208. I found the Respondent’s submissions that the Applicant would have received education and support whilst he was travelling through Europe to be curious against a backdrop of Ms Simmonds’ evidence that the Applicant is not given all that a child would have been entitled to even here in the UK.
209. I have considered the evidence about shaving of arms in gyms. As the Applicant explained and which I accept, many shave their arms because they think it makes them look better in the gym. I accept that the Applicant wished to copy them. Indeed, I am well aware that whether for cycling, weights in the gym or similar, males do shave their arms and legs for image purposes. This is no magic bullet evidence that this 17 year old was trying to hide his age. The Applicant told the age assessors he shaved his forearms and explained that it was for image purposes and that he was also thinking of getting a tattoo. That is not unusual for a 17 year old to do.
Final Analysis
210. It is not necessary to consider every submission made by the parties and to analyse every piece of evidence, but in my judgment, there are 3 pieces of evidence which are compelling.
211. First, are the extensive observations over long periods of time of the Applicant by the 3 professional witnesses in which each of those professionals, who have their own regulations, are convinced that the Applicant is the age he claims.
212. Second is the evidence of the Applicant himself which I found to be consistent, logical and coherent. I accept his evidence that there is a difference in the Afghan calendar and the Gregorian Calendar. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that where others, such as the local authority, have recorded his date of birth as 1/1/2007 that was their error and not his. In any event the year of birth was almost always recorded as 2007 and the few months difference is not what the Respondent contends for in this case in any event. As Ms Benfield states, for example some of the records state at page 824 and 777 of the bundle:
21.10.2007 – Child looked after statutory visit of 19.01.2024, recording “We used a date converter to check your DOB and the conversion showed your DOB as being 21/10/2007 making you 16” [824].
24th of the 6th or the 7th month of 2007 but you think it’s the 7th month” – section 47 risk assessment [777]
213. Third is the evidence of Dr Giustozzi in respect of the document verification. I have considered that evidence carefully and it appears to me to be strong evidence of the Applicant’s Taskira and Birth Registration Certificate being genuine documents and genuinely obtained.
214. The case law makes clear that assessing age is not an exact science and it is not. Indeed, assessing age of those between 16 to 20 can be even more difficult. This Applicant was not much off the age 18 when his age was assessed by the local authority.
Conclusion
215. Mr Hocking has said and done all that he can on behalf of the Respondent with written and oral submissions of a high quality, but I am unable to agree with him in respect of the Applicant’s age.
216. Therefore, considering the extensive evidence as a whole, I conclude that the Applicant’s age is as he claims it to be. Namely, his date of birth is 16 October 2007. Therefore, at the time of the assessment of his age by the Respondent, the Applicant was under the age of 18.
217. I have considered whether a different date of birth might apply in line with the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (on the application of AI) v Berkshire Council [2025] EWCA Civ 136. Having carefully done so, I conclude that I cannot apply a different date of birth to the Applicant in view of the weighty evidence which sufficiently points towards the Applicant’s date of birth being that which he claims it to be.
218. That is my judgment. I ask counsel to provide with a minute of the order and dealing with consequential matters, including costs.
~~~~0~~~~
Postscript.
Following my judgment having been circulated in draft, at my request, counsel provided me with an agreed draft order. That included in respect of costs and consequential matters. I have approved the order. I am grateful to both counsel for their helpful written and oral submissions.
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
MA
Applicant
and
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Mahmood
HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Ms Antonio Benfield of counsel, instructed by Osbornes Solicitors LLP, for the Applicant and Mr Stephen Hocking of counsel, instructed by Hampshire County Council, for the Respondent at a hearing on 2 to 5 June 2026.
AND UPON the parties agreeing that the effect of the Upper Tribunal’s judgment is that the Applicant is a former relevant child and entitled to support accordingly under the Children Act 1989.
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s date of birth is 16 October 2007.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(2) The Applicant’s claim for judicial review is allowed for the reasons in the attached judgment.
(3) The Respondent’s age assessment completed on 7 July 2025 is hereby quashed.
(4) The order for interim relief made on 18 September 2025 is hereby discharged.
(5) The order for anonymity made by the Administrative Court remains in force.
Costs
(6) The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs of the claim, excluding the Applicant’s costs of instructing and/or corresponding with Dr Zadeh including consideration of his reports; and excluding any fees or expenses paid to Dr Zadeh including fees for preparing his reports and for his attendance at the tribunal for cross examination, to be assessed if not agreed.
(7) The Respondent shall make a payment on account of costs in the sum of 60% of the Applicant’s bill of costs within 21 days of receipt of the same.
(8) There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.
Permission to appeal
(9) The Respondent not having sought permission to appeal, and the Upper Tribunal being required to consider permission, permission is refused for the reasons set out in the judgment.
Signed: Abid Mahmood
Upper Tribunal Judge Mahmood
Dated: 4 September 2026
The date on which this order was sent is given below
For completion by the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Sent / Handed to the applicant, respondent and any interested party / the applicant's, respondent’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date): 08/09/2026
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-2025-LON-003411
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
MA
Applicant
- and -
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms Antonia Benfield, Counsel
(instructed by Osbornes Solicitors LLP), for the Applicant
Mr Stephen Hocking, Counsel
(instructed by Legal Services, Hampshire County Council) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 2-5 June 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Direction Regarding Anonymity – Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Applicant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Applicant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Applicant without his express consent. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court. The parties may apply on notice to vary this direction. The direction is being made because the Applicant has made an international protection claim.
Judge Mahmood:
1. This is my decision, following the hearing before me between 2nd and 5th June 2026.
Introduction
2. By way of proceedings issued on 9 September 2025 the Applicant challenges the Respondent’s decision dated 7 July 2025 whereby the Respondent concluded that the Applicant was aged over 18. Whereas the Applicant claims that his date of birth is 16 October 2007 and which would have made him under the age of 18 when he had arrived in the United Kingdom on 5 August 2023.
3. My task is to assess the Applicant’s age. I do so by considering the extensive oral and written evidence which has been presented to me and after considering the detailed oral and written submissions made by both counsel in this case.
Procedural History
4. I have been provided with a substantial number of documents. I am not going to refer to all of the documents and I refer first to the procedural history in respect of the matter at the outset. The documents include a large bundle comprising some 1580 pages plus skeleton arguments from each of the parties, along with written closing submissions from the parties and other evidence.
5. The Applicant had issued his application for permission to apply for judicial review in the Administrative Court. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on all grounds by Hugh Southey KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court on 18 September 2025. The matter was transferred to the Upper Tribunal. Thereafter various orders were made by the Upper Tribunal, including case management orders which led to the hearing before me.
Preliminary Issue
6. The Applicant had made an application prior to the hearing for the admission of written witness evidence from the Applicant’s mother and uncle. The application had been opposed by the Respondent. I provided an ex tempore judgment. The witness statements were admitted but the weight to be attached to them would be limited because the Respondent has not been able to test the evidence by way of cross examination as the witnesses did not attend to provide oral evidence.
The Applicable Legal Principles
7. I refer to the applicable legal principles from outset. It was confirmed that there was no disagreement between the parties about the legal principles.
8. Age assessments are regularly undertaken by local authorities when seeking to determine whether to provide services to individuals under the Children Act 1989.
9. Section 105 of the Children Act 1989 defines as child as a person of less than 18 years of age subject to certain limited cases where the definition is extended pursuant to paragraph 16 of the schedule (which does not apply in this case).
10. Section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 provides:
“(1) It shall be the general duty of every local authority (in addition to the other duties imposed on them by this part)-
(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
(b) so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families,
by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.”
Section 17(10) states:
“(10) For the purposes of this Part a child shall be taken to be in need if:
(a) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority under this Part;
(b) his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services; or
(c) he is disabled,
and ‘family’, in relation to such a child, includes any person who has parental responsibility for the child and any other person with whom he has been living.”
11. Insofar at the legal requirements for age assessments are concerned, there is a well-trodden path in respect of the case law, but the most helpful starting point is the judgment of Stanley Burnton J, as he then was in R (on the application of B) Merton London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 1689; [2003] 4 All ER 280 whereby detailed guidance was provided for local authorities to follow when assessing age.
12. At paragraph 21, His Lordship said:
“21. There is no statutory procedure or guidance issued to local authorities as to how to conduct an assessment of age …
22. The determination of an applicant’s age is rendered difficult by the absence of any reliable anthropometric test: for someone who is close to the age of 18, there is no reliable medical or other scientific test to determine whether he or she is over or under 18.”
His Lordship referred to The Guidelines for Paediatricians issued by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health where it was said:
“Moreover, for young people aged 15-18, it is even less possible to be certain about age. There may also be difficulties in determining whether a young person who might be as old as 23 could, in fact, be under the age of 18. Age determination is an inexact science and the margin of error can sometimes be a much as 5 years either side…Any assessments that are made should also take into account relevant factors from the child’s medical, family and social history.”
His Lordship continued at paragraph 23 onwards to state:
“23. Different people living in the same country, with the same culture and diet, mature physically and psychologically at different rates. …
24. The difficulties are compounded when the young person in question is of an ethnicity, culture, education and background that are foreign, and unfamiliar, to the decision-maker…
28. … It is necessary to take a history from him or her with a view to determining 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…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…
37. … 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 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…
39 … A local authority may take into account information obtained by the Home Office; but it must make its own decision, and for that purpose must have available to it adequate information. …”
13. Merton has thereafter been applied and referred to in numerous other higher court authorities and Upper Tribunal authorities, including in R (on the application of (FZ) v Croydon London Borough Council (also referred to as R (on the application of Z) v Croydon London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 59; [2011] PTSR 748, Sir Anthony May P, giving the judgment on behalf of the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 3:
“In Merton Stanley Burnton J gave guidance in judicial review proceedings and appropriate process to be adopted by a local authority assessing the younger person’s age in borderline cases. The assessment does not require anything approaching a trial and judicialisation of the process is to be avoided. The matter can be determined informally provided there are minimum standards of enquiry and fairness. This decision and this guidance have led to the development of what is sometimes referred to at a Merton compliant interview or process.”
14. In VS v the Home Office [2014] EWHC 2483, Mr Simon Picken KC, sitting as a deputy Judge of the High Court, as he then was, reviewed the authorities and helpfully summarised:
“78. Drawing on Miss Luh’s helpful summary of the Merton guidelines in her skeleton argument (a summary with which Mr Hansen did not take issue), albeit with some modifications in relation to the authorities which were cited, the relevant guidelines can be summarised as follows:
(1) The purpose of an age assessment is to establish the chronological age of a young person.
(2) The decision makers cannot determine age solely on the basis of the appearance of the applicant, except in clear cases: Merton per Stanley Burnton at [37].
(3) Physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis for assessment of chronological age: NA v LB of Croydon [2009] EWHC 2357 (Admin) per Blake J at [27].
(4) Demeanour can also be notoriously unreliable and by itself constitutes only ‘somewhat fragile material’: NA per Blake J at [28]. Demeanour will generally need to be viewed together with other things. As Collins J stated in A and WK v London Borough of Croydon & Others [2009] EWHC 939 (Admin) at [56]:
‘… What is meant by the observation that he appeared to be comfortable in his body? It is difficult to follow what this does mean and how a discomfort with a changing body can manifest itself. Nonetheless, the assessment of his physical appearance and demeanour coupled with the discrepancies and inconsistencies in his account of how he knew his age could justify the conclusion reached.’
(5) There should be ‘no predisposition, divorced from the information and evidence available to the local authority, to assume that an applicant is an adult, or conversely that he is a child’: see Merton per Stanley Burnton at [37-38]. The decision, therefore, needs to be based on particular facts concerning the particular person.
(6) There is no burden of proof imposed on the applicant to have to prove his or her age in the course of the assessment: see Merton per Stanley Burnton at [38]. This is confirmed also by R(CJ) v Cardiff CC [2011] EWCA Civ 1590, in which, at [21], Pitchford LJ said this:
‘It seems to me that once the court is invited to make a decision upon jurisdictional fact it can do no more than apply the balance of probability to the issue without resorting to the concept of discharge of a burden of proof. In my view, a distinction needs to be made between a legal burden of proof, on the one hand, and the sympathetic assessment of evidence on the other. I accept that in evaluating the evidence it may well be inappropriate to expect from the claimant conclusive evidence of age in circumstances in which he has arrived unattended and without original identity documents. The nature of the evaluation of evidence will depend upon the particular facts of the case.’
(7) In similar vein, benefit of any doubt is always given to the unaccompanied asylum-seeking child since it is recognised that age assessment is not a scientific process: see A and WK per Collins J at [40].
(8) The two social workers who carry out the age assessment should be properly trained and experienced: A and WK per Collins J at [38].
(9) The applicant should have an appropriate adult and should be informed of the right to have one with the purpose of having an appropriate adult also being explained to the applicant: see FZ per Sir Anthony May P at [23- 25]; J per Coulson J at [14]; and AAM per Lang J at [94(a)].
(10) The child should be told the purpose of the assessment see FZ per Sir Anthony May P at [3] (summarising Merton).
(11) The decision ‘must be based on firm grounds and reasons’ for it “must be fully set out and explained to the applicant’: A and WK per Collins J at [12].
(12) The approach of the assessors must involve trying ‘to establish a rapport with the applicant and any questioning, while recognising the possibility of coaching, should be by means of open-ended and not leading questions’. It is ‘equally important for the assessors to be aware of the customs and practices and any particular difficulties faced by the applicant in his home society’: A and WK per Collins J at [13].
(13) It is ‘axiomatic that an applicant should be given a fair and proper opportunity, at a stage when a possible adverse decision is no more than provisional, to deal with important points adverse to his age case which may weigh against him’: FZ per Sir Anthony May P at [21]. It is not sufficient that the interviewing social workers withdraw to consider their decision and then return to present the applicant ‘with their conclusions without first giving him the opportunity to deal with the adverse points’: [22]. See also J per Coulson J at [15]; AAM per Lang J at [94(c)]; and Durani per Coulson at [84-87] (in particular, at [84]: ‘Elementary fairness requires that the crucial points which are thought to be decisive against an applicant should be identified, in case the applicant has an explanation for them’).
(14) Assessments devoid of details and/or reasons for the conclusion are not compliant with the Merton guidelines; and the conclusions must be ‘expressed with sufficient detail to explain all the main adverse points which the fuller document showed had influenced the decision’ (FZ per Sir Anthony May at [22]).”
15. I turn to the decision in R (on the application of HAM) v Brent London Borough Council [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin); [2022] PTSR 1779, particularly at paragraphs 10 and 32. In asking the question as to whether an assessment was fair depends on the circumstances and as was made clear, observations in respect of demeanour are particularly unreliable in the context of brief one time encounters with individuals.
16. I also have in mind the decision of the Upper Tribunal comprising a panel with the Vice President Ockelton and Upper Tribunal Judge Lane in R (on the application of AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 (IAC), when it was said at paragraphs 19 and 20:
“19. … So far as demeanour is concerned, it seems to us that there may be value to be obtained from observations of demeanour and interaction with others made over a long period of time by those who have opportunity to observe an individual going about his ordinary life. But we find it difficult to see that any useful observations of demeanour or social interaction or maturity can be made in the course of a short interview between an individual and a strange adult. There may of course be cultural difficulties in such an interview but there are the ordinary social difficulties as well.
20. The asserted expertise of a social worker conducting an interview is not in our judgement sufficient to counteract those difficulties. A person such as a teacher or even a family member, who can point to consistent attitudes, and a number of supporting instances over a considerable period of time, is likely to carry weight that observations made in the artificial surroundings of an interview cannot.”
17. I also have in mind the age assessment guidance which has been issued by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, (“ADCS ”), which was published in October 2015. That sets out various matters including consideration of additional needs and vulnerabilities, the allocation of social workers, that there had been appropriate consideration of appropriate adult independent of the local authority. That there be the analysis on a holistic basis, that there be the opportunity for children and young people to address any relevant gaps or inconsistencies, that before reaching a decision that contradicts the stated age, there be a stage at which there should be discussion with a child or young person in respect of the factors which had led to the assessors coming to their opinion.
18. In R (on the application of CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590; [2012] 2 ALL ER 836, Pitchford LJ with whom Laws LJ and Lloyd Jones J agreed, said,
“Where the issue is whether the claimant is a child for the purposes of the Children Act it seems to me that the application of a legal burden is not the correct approach. There is no hurdle which the claimant must overcome. The court will decide whether, on a balance of probability, the claimant was or was not at the material time a child. The court will not ask whether the local authority has established on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was an adult; nor will it ask whether the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that he is a child.”
19. In R (on the application of SB) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2023] EWCA Civ 924; [2024] 1 WLR 2613 Elizabeth Laing LJ, with whom Falk LJ and Sir Launcelot Henderson agreed, said at paragraph 86,
“…As this court realised in Z v Croydon, an arguable procedural lapse may support an application for permission to apply for judicial review, but once permission to apply has been granted, it is unlikely to play a significant part in the court's decision, based on all the evidence, about the claimant's actual age, which is the court’s real job in these cases. Once permission to apply for judicial review has been granted, it seems to me that the norm should be that the whole case is transferred to the UT, for the UT to consider any procedural challenges in the context of its decision on the merits.”
20. As was said by Baroness Hale in R (on the application of A) and another v the London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8; [2009] 1 WLR 2557 at paragraph 33,
“The better the quality of the initial decision-making, the less likely it is that the court will come to any different decision upon the evidence.”
21. Additionally, Baroness Hale said at paragraphs 27 and 46,
“27. The question whether a person is a ‘child’ is a different kind of question. There is a right or a wrong answer. It may be difficult to determine what that answer is. The decision-makers may have to do their best on the basis of less than perfect or conclusive evidence. But that is true of many questions of fact which regularly come before the courts. That does not prevent them from being questions for the courts rather than for other kinds of decision makers…
46. The result is that if live issues remain about the age of a person seeking accommodation …, then the court will have to determine where the truth lies on the evidence available. …”
22. Lord Hope also emphasised at paragraph 54 in R (on the application of A) and another that in determining an individual’s age:
“…The initial decision taker must appreciate that no margin of discretion is enjoyed by the local authority on this issue. But the issue is not to be determined by a consideration of issues of policy or by a view as to whether resort to a decision by the court in such cases is inappropriate. It depends entirely on the meaning of the statute.”
23. In R (on the application of K) and others v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 1559 (Admin); [2013] 1 WLR 1755, the Deputy Judge in that case had observed the Claimant’s credibility is,
“…highly material, if not fundamental, to the fair and proper assessment of his age.”
24. In MVN v The London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC Civ 1942 (Admin); Pickin J said at paragraph 27 that when assessing a young person’s credibility in terms of their age that,
“The primary focus is on the credibility of the person’s evidence concerning his or her age, but that it is permissible to have regard to credibility more generally provided that, in looking at credibility more generally, the primary focus to which I have referred is not forgotten.”
His Lordship also said at paragraph 28(1),
“(1) Decision makers considering asylum claims should take everything material into account. …
(2) It is an error of law for a decision maker to seek to assess the credibility of a claim in isolation without considering other relevant evidence such as reports regarding a country that corroborates a person’s claims: …
(3) It is also an error of law to fail to take into account of relevant expert evidence when assessing credibility: …
…
(5) Allowances should be given to the fact that asylum seekers (and similarly victims of trafficking) may have problems giving coherent accounts of their history.”
25. In the assessment of documents, again there is no difference between the parties in respect of the applicable law.
26. In Tanveer Ahmed v SSHD [2002] UKAIT 00439, the IAT in a starred decision considered the correct approach to addressing the reliability of documents noting:
“1 In asylum and human rights cases it is for an individual claimant to show that a document on which he seeks to rely can be relied on.
2 The decision maker should consider whether a document is one on which reliance should properly be placed after looking at all the evidence in the round.
3 Only very rarely will there be the need to make an allegation of forgery, or evidence strong enough to support it. The allegation should not be made without such evidence. Failure to establish the allegation on the balance of probabilities to the higher civil standard does not show that a document is reliable. The decision maker still needs to apply principles 1 and 2.”
27. Tanveer Ahmed drew an important distinction on documents which are not a forgery but may contain false information, noting:
“At its simplest we need to differentiate between form and content; that is whether a document is properly issued by the purported author, and whether the contents are true”.
28. In SA (Kuwait) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1157, the Court of Appeal described this as “two different kinds of inauthenticity” namely “forgery of the document itself, and the making of false entries on a genuine document”.
29. In QC (verification of documents; Mibanga duty) China [2021] UKUT 00033 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considered the possibility that a document was issued with incorrect details due to innocent mistake compared with the other possibility that it contains false information due to a wish of the authorities to do so or for example, as a result of bribery. The Tribunal noted that a document emanating from a proper source may not be reliable because: "Unlike the position in the United Kingdom where, happily, instances of corrupt officialdom are relatively rare, it is possible that the foreign official who produced the document may have been suborned".
30. In RP (proof of forgery) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT 00086, the Upper Tribunal held that:
“In judicial proceedings an allegation of forgery needs to be established to a high degree of proof, by the person making the allegation. This is therefore a matter on which the respondent bears the burden of proof. Immigration Judges decide cases on evidence, and in the absence of any concession by the appellant, an Immigration Judge is not entitled to find or assume that a document is a forgery, or to treat it as a forgery for the purposes of his determination, save on the basis of evidence before him...”
The Local Authority’s Age Assessment
31. The Respondent’s age assessors were Neil Connolly a social work team manager and Megan Thomas, a social worker. Their witness statements are dated 2 December 2025 and 5 December 2025 respectively. The Respondent’s age assessors did not provide oral evidence before me.
32. The Respondent’s age assessment has several sections. These include a section headed “Physical appearance, demeanour” in which it was said that “When meeting with [MA] I noted that he looked much older than the 17 he is claiming is his age”.
33. In a subsequent section headed “Interaction of person during assessment” states “He interacted well with the interpreter and did not seem frustrated. I would say his confidence was very adult biased [sic] and not what I [sic] would expect from a young teenager”.
34. Under a section headed “Social history and family composition” there were detailed questions to the Applicant about his family and his journey to the UK. Asked about his Facebook account, the exchange was as follows:
“What apps were you using?
M: Facebook and TikTok.
Are you willing to show your Facebook account?
M: agreed and handed over phone, DOB on Facebook account the 16/10/2007.”
35. A section headed “Developmental considerations” stated that he had worked in Afghanistan providing help to a mechanic. It states:
“M: It was in the village, I was just observing your teacher, I would help out by giving him different tools and being a general helper.
How old were you when you started working? I was about 10 years old when I first started working in the garage. Used to only have small cars so not very busy. Mechanic named Sajult, My father knew him.
Were you paid? M: I would be given a little bit of pocket money a week to buy an ice-cream or similar. Not much at all.
How often would you work?
M: I didn't work fridays but I would attend school and then work with him afterwards. How long did you work in the garage?
M: Until I left Afghanistan which would be approximately 2 years.”
36. In the section headed “Education” the Applicant said he was aged 7 when he started school. He was in the 6th Class when he left Afghanistan. He provided the name and address of his school. He said he went to school in the afternoons.
37. In the section headed “Independent/self care skills” he said that when in Afghanistan, his mother and his sisters did the cooking but he had learned cooking when living here in the UK in accommodation with the 5 other boys he was placed with by the Local Authority. He said he had also been taught how to clean and to “Hoover”. He said he used the gym but got hurt and had to see a doctor. He said he had seen others in the gym shave their forearms when weight training and he did too. He said he was thinking of getting a tattoo.
38. Towards the end of the age assessment, the assessors said that the Applicant was not childlike in his mannerisms and he had a confidence which was not congruent with someone under 18.
39. The Applicant was also asked questions about his identity documents.
40. It is important to highlight that the Applicant explained throughout that a different calendar is used in Afghanistan compared to our Gregorian calendar here in the UK.
41. Indeed, it is clear that even during the age assessment, the interpreter used by the Respondent had made a mistake. There is an exchange as follows:
“Asked translator if he can read the date on the stamp: 1386/7/24, which would be 2007 however, if you were 10 when this picture was taken and date stamped then this would lead to you being 10 years older.
We went through the calendar transition and highlighted that the stamp is sighted as 1386/07/24 which is equivalent to 16/07/2007.
The translator then clarified that they had been confused and were reading your birthday which was recorded on the document not the stamp above, he stated this was too blurred to read.”
42. I therefore note that the Applicant has said his date of birth was 1386/07/24 which converts to 16 July 2007. It would make him aged 17 at the time of the age assessment. The Applicant did not provide a date 10 years older. The interpreter appears to have said that “10 years older” date in error and which error was noted as above by the Local Authority’s social workers. I note that it is said that the Applicant is said to have provided different days in 2007 as his date of birth, but the Applicant explained that he had provided the 1386/07/24 as his date of birth. He said it may have been incorrectly translated as being 1 January 2007 or 15 July 2027 or 16 October 2007. Importantly even with those mistakes in translating, the year of birth has remained largely consistent. Namely 2007. The difference in the months is relatively minor when the Respondent contends that the Applicant is ‘considerably’ older than his claimed age. The Local Authority contends that the Applicant was born in 2000 making him 7 years older than his claimed age.
43. A section headed “Feedback from the Current Care Team” agreed with the Applicant’s claimed date of birth. It states:
“I’m happy to provide my observations of [MA] I currently work as the Registered Service Manager for Young London and have been supporting Brecknock Home since its opening in 2024.
I’ve been closely monitoring [MA]’s development since he arrived with us in October 2024. [MA] has been engaging well with both the staff and the other young people in the home. Initially, there were challenges in understanding his skills due to a language barrier, as his English was quite limited. However, since attending college and ESOL classes, his English has improved significantly, which has helped him engage better with both the staff and the other young people in the home. Although his attendance has fluctuated due to health issues, he has made clear progress in his language skills, which has been beneficial for his personal development.
When it comes to my views on his age, I have not had concerns regarding the age he claims. [MA] has consistently interacted in a way that is appropriate for his age, particularly with his peers, who are around 16 or 17 years old. For example, during Ramadan, he was fully involved with the other young boys in the home in preparing and sharing meals, which is something typical of someone in his claimed age range. Furthermore, when a 16-year-old boy joined the home, [MA] and the other boys were very welcoming, cooking dinner and inviting him to join.
In terms of his development at Brecknock, we have been supporting him with skills that are typical of someone aged 16 or 17, such as applying for his entitlements, budgeting, home management and cleaning, preparing meals, and storing food. [MA] shows good ability to learn and improve these skills, and I have no concerns about his claimed age based on my professional observations.
I have attached some key work sessions that may help further illustrate the support we’ve been providing to [MA] and the way he has been progressing in terms of his entitlements and development.
Please do let me know if you need any further information or clarification.”
44. The analysis section of the report states that:
“A fully Merton Complaint Age assessment was completed and both the 2 social workers and the home office agreed that you are an adult. It was clarified that we are struggling to believe that you are in fact a child, today we will ask you several more specific questions. Offer for you to have food, drink and rests whenever you needed.”
45. Further matters were recorded thereafter, including the “minded to” discussions and responses from the Applicant. The assessment concluded:
“…we have concluded this assessment and agree with Home Office, and your initial Age Assessment, that you are in fact an adult. We agree with the Date of Birth given by the Home Office…”
The Applicant’s Evidence
46. I heard oral evidence from the Applicant and he had adopted his witness statement dated 2 September 2025 as part of his evidence-in-chief. There was also an earlier witness statement for the asylum claim.
47. A summary of the Applicant’s witness statement is that he said that he grew up in a village in Nangarhar, Afghanistan, which I am not going to identify more specifically for anonymity purposes. The Applicant said that his father had been a soldier. His father had been killed by the Taliban. Other evidence refers to the Taliban seeking to recruit or were seeking the Applicant too. The Applicant set out details of his siblings. He was the fourth youngest of the children. He said he lived in a house made of mud and that the location of the home was in a ‘beautiful green area’.
48. The Applicant described his home as follows:
“We had a large front-garden where we had a cow, and grew vegetables such as tomatoes, onions and potatoes and cultivated wheat on our land. We had running water however, we did not have internet connection and did not have reliable electricity supply, so many of our neighbours and ourselves relied on installed solar panels.”
49. The Applicant said in respect of attending school that:
“I attended elementary school from the age of seven years old. The school year ran from the ‘Hamal’ month in the Afghan calendar until ‘Qaws’ month in the Afghan calendar. My legal representatives have told me that these months converted into the Gregorian calendar are March and November. My school was called [redacted] which was based in the province of Nangahar. The school contained nine year groups and was a short distance walk from my home, around 30 minutes. I enjoyed attending school and I studied subjects such as Maths, Art, Sports and both the Qur’an and the Pashto language. At my school, boys and girls studied separately- we attended classes in the afternoon. I stopped attending when I was around 13 years old, after completing year six. I did attend around one or two weeks of year seven, but I stopped attending due to the issues that my father experienced with the Taliban.”
50. The Applicant provided details in respect of his father as follows:
“My father passed away in February 2021. I believe that my father was killed by the Taliban. One evening, I was watering the vegetables on our land. From a distance, I saw the Taliban on the side of the road. I recognised that they were members of the Taliban because they were carrying weapons and were not wearing uniform (instead, they were wearing Afghan traditional clothing). At the time, I thought that they were digging a hole in the road. I got scared and hid, as I did not want them to see me. When they left, I went to go to see what they were doing. To me, it appeared that they had dug a hole into the ground. I called my mother who spoke to my father. I was scared as this was the route that my father took to and from work. My father told me to return to the house, and he asked some soldiers to investigate. My father told me that the other soldiers had found a land mine buried into the ground. A few days later, the Taliban turned up at my house and requested to speak to me. They kept telling my mother that they had seen me and suspected that I had informed the soldiers about the landmine. The Taliban regularly visited our house and demanded that both my father and I hand ourselves to the Taliban. I have been told by others in the village that my father was killed by the Taliban when he was going to work. Other people in the village brought my father’s body home and informed us about the news. We were all shocked by the news. The passing of my father caused me to become very sad. I did not want to talk about it to anyone at the time and I felt very alone, especially as my mother sent me to my uncle’s house to stay for my safety. I remember that I cried a lot after hearing the news about my father. I was also very scared as the Taliban continued to come to my house, demanding to speak to me. I still get very emotional when I am asked questions about my father. I always think of my father, and I miss him dearly.”
51. In respect of his date of birth, the Applicant said in his witness statement:
14. I am 17 years old, and my date of birth is 16 October 2007. I don’t believe I was told my age and date of birth by my mother when I lived in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, age and date of birth are not as important and I never felt I needed to ask them about this information. However, I roughly knew my age based on the school year that I attended. For example, I knew that I was over 13 years old but under 14 years old when I left Afghanistan as I had completed year six and only studied in year seven for around one or two weeks.
15. I remember my mother and paternal uncle telling me my age and date of birth when I was in Romania. I remember being told my date of birth in the Afghan calendar. I also now know my age and date of birth as I have a Taskira and Birth Registration Card, which both record my date of birth.
16. I did not travel from Afghanistan with my Taskira because I had heard from other people before I left Afghanistan that if you were caught by Iranian authorities, they would destroy your document and return you back to your home country.
17. I did not celebrate any birthdays in Afghanistan as in my culture, we do not typically celebrate birthdays. Identity Document- Birth Registration Card
18. I have a Birth Registration Card which I understand from my legal representatives has been authenticated and verified by two different experts.
19. I received a photograph of my Birth Registration Card from my paternal uncle when I was in Belgium. I did not know that I had a Birth Registration Card and was surprised to receive a copy of this document, having initially only requested to be sent a photograph of my Taskira document. When I received the photograph of this document, it was the first time that I had seen the document.
20. As I have explained in this statement, I did not know that I had a Birth Registration Card and I do not know how this document was obtained. However, I know from my mother that I was born in a hospital and from reading the document, I know that records my date of birth, and that it was issued on that same day.
Identity Document- Taskira Issuance
21. I have a Taskira document which I understand from my legal representatives has been authenticated and verified by two different experts.
22. I received a photograph of my re-issued Taskira document from my paternal uncle when I was in Belgium. As I will explain in detail later in this statement, when I fled Afghanistan, I knew that I had a Taskira document and that it recorded my age and date of birth. It is for this reason that when I was asked by the Belgium authorities if I had any identity documents which could prove my claimed date of birth, I contacted my family to ask if they could send me a copy of my Taskira document. Before I received the photograph of my re-issued Taskira document, I believe that I had seen my first physical Taskira document on one occasion, and later, my re-issued physical Taskira document on another separate occasion when I lived in Afghanistan.
23. I was around six years old when I was issued with my first Taskira document. At the time, I did not understand the full importance of the Taskira document and that it recorded important details such as my age and date of birth. My father told me that I needed to obtain the document in order to enrol in school. Therefore, at the time, I thought this document was only helpful for school registration purposes
24. I was very young when I was issued with my first Taskira document. I am not able to recall all the details, but I have provided as much information as I can in this statement. I remember travelling with my father from my home to Kagi Bazaar by vehicle. The journey was around 15 minutes. I remember attending a big government building, which contained different offices. When we entered the building, I remember seeing people outside the different offices. I now know that these people were petition writers. My father approached one of the petition writers and explained to them that he wanted to request a Taskira document for me. I cannot remember the details of my father’s conversation with the petition writer; however, I remember the petition writer recording information and my father giving the petition writer some money. I then had my photograph taken in a small shop. We were given four or five copies of my photograph. We then walked to the office where Taskira documents are issued, but before entering, we were both searched twice by different officers. After being searched, we were told to sit down and to wait in the queue. At the time, I remember the office being very busy and crowded. I saw different officers sitting at different tables and recording information. When we were called, I walked to the table and remember seeing a male officer who had a beard and was wearing traditional Afghan clothing, with a waistcoat. Other than asking me how I was, the officer only spoke to my father. I cannot remember what questions the officer asked my father or my father’s responses to the questions being asked. However, I remember seeing my father hand over the petition and all of the photographs that had been taken earlier that same day. After the officer finished asking his questions, we then walked to another office, and we were handed my Taskira document, which was enclosed in a clear plastic sleeve.
25. After I was issued with my Taskira document, I remember my father and I attending my school (De Kagi Bazaar Enjono Maktab) in order to enrol. We enrolled around two weeks (to my best estimate) before my first day at school, and when I was seven years old. We attended the administration office, and my father spoke to the headteacher. Other teachers and a director were also in the administration office. I cannot recall what my father and the headteacher were discussing. I remember my father showing my Taskira document to the headteacher, and the headteacher filling out some papers, and adding my name to the attendance book. After my name was added to the attendance book, I was told by my headteacher that I would be provided with a school bag, pencils and a notebook on my first day at school. At the time, I did not know that my father’s details were incorrectly recorded on the Taskira document, or whether the issue was noticed by my father or the school at the time.
26. I was first told that my first Taskira document contained incorrect information when I was around ten years old. My school provided all students in year 1, year 2 and year 3 with a notebook, pens, books and a school bag. However, from year four, other than books, I stopped receiving the other items from the school. I understand from my form tutor that students in year four and above received just biscuits and books. I was asked by my school to bring my Taskira to prove that I was eligible to receive biscuits. After being asked to produce my Taskira, I spoke to my mother and asked her to speak to my father (who was away at work) to find my Taskira document. At the time, I did not know where my father was keeping my Taskira document. After I was given my Taskira document by my mother, I showed it to the school however, they told me that my father’s name had been incorrectly recorded. They told me that I needed to speak to my father about the issue, and that he would know what to do. I was told that I would not receive any biscuits until I provided a Taskira document which accurately recorded my father’s details. After being informed by the school, I spoke to my mother and after a few days, my father took me to the Taskira office to get my Taskira document amended.
27. I was ten years old when I was re-issued with my Taskira document. Again, I am not able to remember all the details, but I remember travelling to the same office by vehicle with my father. I believe we attended the same big government building, and when we entered, my father approached one of the petition writers and explained to them that he wanted to amend the Taskira document that had previously been issued to me. I had updated photographs taken in a small shop, and we then entered the office which issued Taskira documents. As before, the office contained several officers who were each sitting next to tables and recording information. I remember the officer being a male and he stood out to me as his clothes were very grand and nice, not clothing that people from my village typically wear. I remember hearing my father informing the officer that he wanted him to amend my Taskira as it incorrectly recorded his name. From my best recollection, the officer responded to my father and explained that he could not amend the Taskira, but he would re-issue the Taskira. My father and the officer spoke to each other, and I could see the officer copying information recorded from the old Taskira document onto the re-issued Taskira document. Again, we were told to collect the Taskira document from a different office. When we were given the re-issued Taskira document, I noticed that the Taskira document had my updated photograph and accurately recorded my father’s name. My father also told me that he would get the Taskira signed by a village elder.”
52. In cross examination the Applicant was asked about his home village in Afghanistan. He said other families live in his village too. He said that in the winter months it was cold and hot in the summer months. He said that there was ‘a nice mountainous view’ from his village. School was some 30 minutes walking distance away. The Applicant said he was aged about 7 when he commenced school. He said the school month started from the 3rd month and ended in the 11th month. He explained that schooling was usually for 9 years but he had left earlier.
53. The Applicant was asked about his Taskira, being an ID document. The Applicant agreed that a Taskira document was required to register at school.
54. The Applicant commenced school with that Taskira. The Applicant said that after some 3 years at school, he had to show his Taskira again. This was for entitlement to some biscuits. I understood this to be some fortified biscuits provided for nutrition purposes by the UNICEF or some NGO. The Applicant said that there was a problem with his Taskira because it did not have the correct name for his father. The Applicant was therefore asked to get the Taskira corrected.
55. The issue being that the Applicant’s father’s full name was incorrect on the original Taskira. The Applicant explained in his oral and written evidence that although he could not recall all of the details as he was aged only 10, he recalled going with his father in a vehicle to government buildings. Updated photographs had to be taken of the Applicant at a nearby shop and petition writers assisted with obtaining the updated Taskira document. The Applicant said that an officer stood out to him because he was wearing ‘very nice grand clothing’. The Applicant said that as best as he was able to recall, he remembered the officer saying that the Taskira could not be amended, but that a new Taskira would have to be issued instead. The Applicant said he recalled seeing the Taskira being prepared. The Taskira later needed to be signed by a village elder.
56. It was put to the Applicant that he was not telling the truth about his Taskira. He was pressed on why he did not mention that there had been 2 Taskiras and he said that the social workers had not asked him that. He said he was asked about how the Taskira was obtained when he was aged 6 and he said he told the social workers about that. He said when asked about the Taskira at age 10 on the following day at his further interview he had told the social workers. He said he did not know that there was an issue with first Taskira because he was aged just 6 and the school had not raised an issue at that time.
57. Asked about the Birth Registration Card, he said he did not know that his had existed until he was sent a picture of it when he was in Belgium. It was put to the Applicant that the Taskira and Birth Registration Card were fraudulent documents. The Applicant said that he had not seen the Birth Registration Card previously and could not comment on that but he insisted that the Taskira was genuine. The Applicant responded robustly to say that there was no proof that the Taskira was not genuine.
58. The Applicant provided details of his WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. He said when he left Belgium his WhatsApp had not been working. He said he had not saved the messages from his uncle when in Belgium. I understood him to say that the image had saved on to his “gallery” on his mobile telephone.
59. The Applicant was asked about working in Afghanistan. He said he had been helping a mechanic. He said he worked from 9am to 1pm and he then went to school. If there was no school on that day then he said he would stay at the mechanics for the whole day. He said he was an assistant to the master mechanic. He said, “I mostly unfix the tyre and the mechanic came and look at the issue with tyre.” He said he would also open the bonnet and “unfix” the water radiator. The Applicant said that he has asked Hampshire County Council to permit him to work doing (car) mechanic work a number of times. It was put to the Applicant that a 15 or 16 year old would be doing the type or work that he was describing, but the Applicant asked what proof there was of that and that, in effect, it was commonplace for boys of his age to be doing this sort of assistant work with a mechanic to learn the skills. The Applicant said he did get paid for the work but that it was “quite little”.
60. The Applicant was asked about the languages that he spoke. Other than some English he said he spoke Pashto and some Dari. He said he was also able to understand some Farsi. The Applicant said he left Afghanistan in March 2021 and arrived in the UK on 5 August 2023 and so he had been travelling for some 2 years and 5 months. He said he had been with agents and others along the journey. Asked if he went to school along his journey, the Applicant asked, “are there schools in the jungle”. I reminded the Applicant to answer the questions being asked. The Applicant said he had asked if he could go to school in Belgium.
61. The Applicant said that he had been given ID documents along the journey by the agents and which were then taken off him. He referred to his witness statement at paragraph 41 which referred to a time when he was in Turkey. That stated:
“I do not know where the other people went, but they left during different points on route to Tatvan. At the wall, we were each given an identity card by the smugglers. The identity card recorded a different name and did not have my picture. I am unsure if it recorded a date of birth. The smugglers told us to show the identity card to a police officer if we were ever caught. Unfortunately, I lost the identity card during my journey to the United Kingdom.”
62. The Applicant was taken through his journey from Afghanistan to the UK. He provided details of approximately how long he had spent in each location. He said that the agents would permit them to call their families on occasion. The Applicant said he had looked for work when he was in Turkey because they were only given 10 to 15 Turkish Lira per day for food. He said the places that he went to for work said he was too young. He said he was aged 14 at the time.
63. The Applicant referred to interacting with the authorities in Serbia and Romania. He said he told the authorities in Germany that he was aged 15 and they had accepted that. He said once in Belgium where had stayed for some 6 to 7 months, he had “left everything behind”. He was asked how he was able to bring his mobile telephone with him and asked if he had deliberately left documents behind The Applicant insisted that if he knew he would be asked for documents once in the UK then “surely I would have brought them with me”. It was put to him that his solicitors should have obtained some of the documents from the Belgian authorities. He said that those were matters for his solicitors and he did not know what to say about his solicitors.
64. The Applicant provided details in respect of his Facebook account. He gave details of the photographs within the bundle. Such as page 239 which was taken in Reading, Berkshire. Page 242 was said to have been taken on Eid day in 2025. He said page 71 had been taken by his first social worker.
65. It was put to the Applicant that Ms Victoria Simmonds had said that the Applicant was highly independent and assertive. He explained about being required to move from Liverpool to Southampton. He said he knew some people in Reading and wanted some money to go there. He said the room in Southampton is small and has a bad smell so he tries to get away from that. He said Ms Simmonds said that she thought that the Applicant’s level of English was better than he claimed. The Applicant said that Ms Simmonds never arranged an interpreter but although he could understand most things in English, he could not understand everything. Ms Simmonds had said that she thought the Applicant thought that the people he lived with were of a lower class than him. She also referred to food banks.
66. The Applicant was asked about going to the gym. He agreed he had shaved his forearms because he saw others had done that at the gym so he did too.
67. It was put to the Applicant that he was born much earlier than October 2007. It was said he had undertaken a dangerous journey to come to the UK. It was put to him that he had concealed his true age. The Applicant said he agreed he had gone through an arduous journey but he had no choice but to do so. He said that his documents had been checked by a number of people and they were genuine.
68. In re-examination the Applicant said that the reason people were shaving their forearms was because pictures were being taken of themselves with their physique and for image purposes. He said it was nice so he did it too. Asked about Ms Simmonds evidence, he said there was another person sharing a room with him in Liverpool, but he did not say to Ms Simmonds about lower class because she was not his social worker at that time. The Applicant was asked about the Taskira and the biscuits and mention was made of food stamps. Asked about being an assistant to the mechanic, the Applicant said there were 3 others there too and he said they were younger than him. The Applicant provided evidence in respect of his Facebook account and the saving of the pictures to galleries. The Applicant said he had not stayed in Southampton for Eid because he did not have any friends there. He said he celebrated Eid in Reading and shared sweets and prayers with others in Reading.
69. I have summarised a lot, but not all, the Applicant’s evidence, which I think has been necessary to do in this case.
The Applicant’s Witnesses’ Evidence
70. I now turn to some of the evidence of the Applicant’s witnesses.
71. Ms Lea Abi-Akl provided oral evidence. She is the Registered Service Manger for an organisation known as Young London Today. She adopted her witness statement dated 25 June 2025 as part of her evidence. She explained that she had been working at Brecknock since it was opened in 2024. Brecknock being a semi-independent residential facility that accommodates young people. Primarily supporting asylum seeking children and young adults between the ages of 16 to 18.
72. Ms Lea Abi-Akl’s witness statement said that:
“My role has enabled me to closely observe [MA]’s behaviour and development ever since he arrived with us in October 2024. I interact with the staff that support [MA] on a daily basis as part of my management responsibilities, observing his interactions with staff and other residents (his peers), and overseeing his support plan along with the other young people.
4. Based on my observations, [MA] has been engaging well with both the staff and the other young people in Brecknock. Brecknock currently houses three other young people, all aged between 16-18 years old. Initially, there were challenges in understanding his skills due to a language barrier, as his English was quite limited. However, since regularly attending college and ESOL classes, his English has improved significantly, which has helped him engage better with both the staff and the other young people in Brecknock. Although his attendance has fluctuated due to health issues, he has made clear progress in his language skills, which has been beneficial for his personal development. His commitment to his education, despite health challenges, demonstrates a level of focus and determination that I observe to be consistent with someone approaching adulthood within the 16-17 age range.
5. In terms of my personal views on [MA]s age, I have not had any concerns regarding the age he claims. [MA] has consistently interacted in a way that is appropriate for his age, particularly with his peers, who are around 16 or 17 years old. For example, during Ramadan, he was fully involved with the other young boys in Brecknock in preparing and sharing meals, which is something typical of someone in his claimed age range. He regularly participates in group activities such as watching television, listening to music, and playing games with the other residents. He often jokes and laughs with his peers, displaying the kind of natural, age-appropriate social interactions I would expect from someone of his claimed age. Furthermore, when a 16 year-old boy joined Brecknock, [MA] and the other boys were very welcoming, cooking dinner and inviting him to join their activities.
6. In my direct interactions with [MA], he comes across as polite and respectful, though sometimes quiet, particularly when discussing more serious matters. His behaviour and demeanour are entirely consistent with his claimed age - he shows the appropriate level of maturity for a 17-year-old, while still displaying the social dynamics and interests typical of someone in this age group.
7. In terms of his development at Brecknock, we have been supporting him through our structured support programme, which provides approximately 10 - 15 hours per week of one-to-one support delivered by his designated keyworker. This includes skills development such as applying for his entitlements, budgeting, home management and cleaning, preparing meals, and storing food. We provide these skills classes specifically to young people between the ages of 16-18, as part of their transition to independent living. [MA] shows good ability to learn and willingness to improve these skills, and his level of independence is entirely consistent with his claimed age. He demonstrates the learning capacity and developmental progress I would expect from someone aged 17.
8. I have no concerns about his claimed age based on my professional observations. I was genuinely surprised and shocked when I heard that his age had been disputed and that he was assessed to be 23 years old at the date of the assessment. This assessment is completely inconsistent with my daily observations of his behaviour, social interactions, developmental needs, and overall presentation, all of which align with someone of his claimed age.”
73. In her oral evidence Ms Lea Abi-Akl said that since her witness statement she does not work for Young London Today. She said her role then was the operational side of homes that they had managed and to support young people. She told me that prior to this role, she had worked in residential care for children for over 10 years, after having completed her Masters Degree. She said she had worked her way up in supported accommodation for children. This included for children in care and she had also worked in a psychiatric unit.
74. Ms Lea Abi-Akl confirmed that she had sent an opinion to the age assessors and which appeared at page 479 of the bundle. In that e-mail to age assessors she had said as has been set out what I have set out above in respect of the evidence provided by Ms Simmonds. The witness also referred to page 1297 of the bundle which was an online care plan for the Applicant. Ms Lea Abi-Akl said that her views in respect of the Applicant’s age had not changed. Namely she thought that the Applicant’s age was as claimed by him.
75. In cross examination Ms Lea Abi-Akl was asked about her work with the Applicant. She said that as the registered manager, her role was to oversee the work being provided by the key workers. She said she was managing other homes too at the time. She said she had been spending lots of time with children do understand their needs and wants. She was undertaking a full 9 to 5 job she told me. She said there were 6 boys being cared for in the various homes.
76. Asked if the key worker records were complete within the bundle, the witness said that much of the time the records were kept at the home and not sent to social workers unless they were asked for or unless they were required for an inspection by Ofsted or the like. The witness said that when providing her witness statement she had been working from memory. She said that most of her working experience was with those under 18 and some aged 18 to 21. She said that there were other children in the same home as the Applicant. She said all were aged 16 to 17 years of age. She said some of the others were also Afghans. The witness partly agreed that to share food together or experiences with others in the home was not necessarily indicative of the Applicant being aged under 18. She accepted too that it did not necessarily follow that being able to deal with budgeting and home management and learning such skills did not mean he was under 18. She said the 2 things could be true at the same time.
77. In re-examination Ms Lea Abi-Akl said that her organisation had worked with many local authorities and not just with Hampshire County Council. She said that the Applicant’s place had been funded by Hampshire. She said that there were various local authority duties that had to be met and the requirements of Ofsted.
78. Asked what the process would be if the witness or one of the social workers had a concern about the resident’s age, she said that others in the home might be at risk of criminal or sexual exploitation. If there was an issue about safeguarding then there would be a discussion with the social worker. The witness stressed that there were no concerns about this Applicant from any of the core workers or others. She said that there were 3 shifts per day and so there were lots of different workers but none had raised an issue about the Applicant’s age not being what he claimed it to be.
79. Asked if there had ever been an issue with any other residents, the witness said that she spoke many different languages herself and that in a different case a person had passed all of his reviews and even though there was a positive age assessment saying that person was under 18, they still had their concerns about that person and raised it as a concern with the social workers.
80. The witness was asked what she meant when she said at paragraph 7 of her witness statement that the Applicant had “Social dynamics and interests typical of someone in this age group”, she said it meant sports, gym and riding bicycles.
81. Asked to reflect on whether she ever felt that the Applicant was aged in his 20’s when at the home, she said when he lived there, “I do not think that at any point he was over 18”.
82. The next witness to give evidence was Ms Mary Matasva. She is a support worker, working for Willow Tree. She adopted her witness statement dated 4 February 2026 as part of her evidence. She stated that she had supported the Applicant between 11 August 2023 and 26 July 2024. She told me that she had been a care worker in South Africa prior to 2018.
83. Mr Hocking asked the witness if in her role as a support worker it was an important part of her job to build a good relationship with those being accommodated. She disagreed and said that they were provided with support and nurturing. She said that it was not necessary to be friends with the people they work with. She said there was no permission to build a rapport with the young people. She said it was it was important to have a good relationship with the children they worked with. Asked if it was important to believe what the young person was telling them, she said it was not proper for her to believe what they say. She said she would not challenge them but that “I have my observations and can do my investigations to see what they say is true”.
84. The witness agreed that the Applicant was with them at Willow Tree between August 2023 and July 2024. She was asked if the Applicant was newly in the country that it was not surprising, he needed lots of support. She said he was asking for support and so she provided it. The witness was asked about the weekly reports in the bundle. There were 4 such reports in the bundle. There were some 48 in total. The witness said she did not know why the other reports were not in the bundle, but they had been sent by Willow Tree to the social workers at the local authority.
85. The witness was asked about paragraph 5 of her witness statement which stated:
“During his time at the placement, [MA] was supported to register with Bracknell and Wokingham College, as well as with a GP, dentist, and optician. He was supported to attend all appointments, including college meetings, PEP meetings, CLA review meetings, and his age assessment, as he required a high level of support at the time. This is consistent with other young people that I have supported. From my experience, we often support a young person to attend the first or second appointment, however, [MA] continued to receive support attending further meetings and appointments as it was felt by the professionals supporting him that he needed additional support and reassurance. Over time, I noticed that his confidence level improved and he was better able to communicate his needs to professionals.”
86. When it was suggested to the witness this support was required in view of the Applicant being new to the UK, the witness insisted that was not a fair observation. She said that Willow Tree had taken the Applicant to an initial appointment, but he was not able to go any appointments on his own. She said for other young people at most it was 2 appointments that they attended with them.
87. The witness said that all others in the home at Willow Tree were Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children. She said that she used Google Translate to communicate with the Applicant at the placement because he did not speak English well.
88. The witness was asked to consider paragraph 6 of her witness statement in which she said:
Throughout his placement, [MA] consistently presented as a young person whose behaviour and presentation matched his stated age. This is based on my experience and interactions supporting other young people. This was evident in the way he communicated with staff, interacted during meetings, and socialised with other young people at the placement. I often observed him playing games with other young people in the placement and sharing jokes. The young people also socialised together- going shopping together and completing tasks together. [MA] also demonstrated interest in playing cricket and was keen to learn and do well in college. This reinforced my observations of his age. In my experience, young people from the age of 17 years are often more focused on finding a job and gaining more independence, however, [MA] wanted to have fun and was very focused on his studies.”
89. It was put to her that it was not surprising that the Applicant would be socialising with other 16 to 17 year olds and she agreed. She said that some of the persons did not have permission to work but went out to work anyway. She said that the Applicant though followed the rules and complied.
90. The witness was asked about paragraph 7 of her witness statement where she said:
“As part of placement activities, group sessions were held covering topics such as sex and relationships. During these discussions, [MA] appeared shy and uncomfortable. He often avoided engaging in these conversations and told staff that he was too shy to approach girls. When topics such as sexual relationships, sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception were discussed, [MA] would hide his face, stand behind others, or giggle, which was consistent with immature behaviour expected of a young person of his claimed age.”
91. It was put to the witness that this was perhaps due to cultural unfamiliarity because such things were not discussed. The witness said that she did not agree. She said that the 4 other residents were also Afghans and of the same age and they were all able to engage in such discussions. She said that some had engaged in sexual activities too because some were speaking from experience.
92. The witness was also asked about other parts of her witness statement such as doing the chores and cooking. She said that the Applicant did not challenge staff. She said, “He had the respect of a young person towards adults like other young people at the placement…I say as a mother myself. He was a young person and was below the age of 18 and I compared him with other people in the home and we were making our own observations.”
93. It was put to the witness that this could just as easily mean it was a man aged 21 new to the country and she reiterated her evidence, agreeing though that some aspects of unfamiliarity with how to do things would not necessarily mean that the person is under 18.
94. In re-examination the witness said that it was common for Hampshire County Council to ask for their views when there are age assessments to be undertaken. The witness said she did not think that the Applicant was merely an inexperienced 20 year old because he was always asking for support. Asked whether the Applicant could be a 20 year old lacking in confidence, the witness said whilst this was possible, “It could be, but from my perspective, I believed he was a child.”
95. The Applicant also called Shona Walne, a Youth Welfare Officer at a charity called Young Roots, as a witness. Ms Walne relied on her witness statement dated 26 September 2024. She provided evidence remotely because she was on maternity leave and indeed the young baby featured in the video link too.
96. In her oral evidence the witness said that the Applicant told her that his year of birth was 2007 and she had no reason to believe it was not. She said she had met the Applicant in July 2024 and she recalled 4 interactions with him in addition meetings. She said she last had interaction with the Applicant at a youth activity in October 2024.
97. In cross examination she confirmed it was correct that because her charity worked with young asylum seekers then she would not ask questions and would get on with providing the support they needed. She said that as a policy, persons were treated at the age that they say they are, even if the age is disputed. She said it was a sensible policy and that her charity worked with older people too. I understood this to be for other services reserved for adults. She said the charity worked with people aged between 11 and 25. If they were older then those concerns would be raised because they should not be accessing the charity’s services.
98. The witness was asked about the contemporaneous records for the Applicant. She said there was a database but she did not know why those records were not before the Tribunal. She said she had seen those records and they described the interaction that the Applicant had with her. She referred to 4 instances of activity which included regular English classes, board games and she referred to Young Roots Hub.
99. The witness was asked to elaborate on the differences between what she would expect of a 16/17 year old and someone aged 20. She said it was a generalisation, but a 16 to 17 year old would be less independent and more in need of support and more vulnerable on account of their young age and often more frightened compared with someone older than that. The witness agreed though that there could be a particularly anxious person in their 20’s and a particularly confident teenager. She said could only give her experience but it is not an exact science. She said she agreed that in respect of the Applicant not wishing to attend events without a friend, that could mean he is someone older too. She said she had meant in terms of travel though.
100. It was put to the witness that she was not concerned about the Applicant’s exact age and that what she had witnessed during her care of the Applicant could just as easily have been consistent with him being in his early 20’s or aged 16. The witness said, “I would say that we would support him whether he was in his teens or early 20’s, but that is not to say I would write a witness statement unless I believed that he was a young person”. She said that there were cases when others were not supported by the provision of a witness statement because there had not been confidence that the person was the age that they were saying they were.
101. It was said to the witness that she was not deliberately lying or misrepresenting the position but it was being put to her that it was equally consistent with the Applicant being considerably older than he claimed. The witness said that “I cannot say with 100% certainty his age… I can only give my best opinion”.
102. There were also 2 new witness statements from the Applicant’s mother and his uncle. I admitted those witness statements, but I agree with Mr Hocking that there has been no opportunity for the Respondent to cross examine on those witness statements. Whilst hearsay is admissible in these proceedings, I conclude that I am only able to give only minimal of weight to these 2 witness statements for that reason. I will consider this evidence in the round with that minimal weight.
103. Dr Zadeh provided expert evidence in this case. I shall refer to his evidence in more detail further below.
104. Other than the Age Assessment Report dated 23 June 2025 and the Outcome of the Age Assessment report dated 7 July 2025 the Respondent relied on the oral and written evidence of Ms Victoria Simmonds. She is a Child and Families Social Worker. She adopted her witness statement dated 1 December 2025 as part of her evidence. She said was the allocated social worker for the Applicant from May 2025 to October 2025.
105. In cross examination Ms Simmonds said that she had qualified in July 2024. She said had undertaken a ‘number of’ age assessments since 2025 and so it was incorrect in her witness statement to say that she had undertaken those since 2024. She said she had not given evidence previously in respect of age assessments. She referred to ASYE for newly qualified social workers. She said she does not now work with refugees and now works in kinship care having moved on 6 November 2025.
106. Despite all statutory visits requiring to be recorded, she did so later. Asked about documents in the bundle, including page 971, the witness said she took over from Ms Sophie White who was on maternity leave. Asked about the document, the witness said, “To be honest I am doubting myself now”. She took a long pause and said, “I am not sure in all honesty.” She said, “I started with Hampshire in August and then refugee service in the following April.”
107. The witness was asked how she was dealing with the Applicant if he had moved from Hampshire’s area to Liverpool. The witness said she must have done this via WhatsApp for “compassionate reaching out” but that, “I do not remember that in all honesty.”
108. The witness was considerably pressed in cross examination on whether what she saw in the Applicant was inconsistent with him being 17 years of age. She said the Applicant was very bright and personable, but others were not. She said the Applicant had a “lovely temperament”. She said some of the other persons had trauma to deal with too. The witness said that “Perhaps my statement of his needs is understated and he was ambitious and not reflected…”.
109. The witness said that as a social worker who met the Applicant once, on reflection she could have said that as a 17 year old and 8 months person, she was not definitive about his age.
110. She confirmed that in her discussions with the Applicant there was no interpreter. Having provided her witness statement in negative terms, the witness was asked whether it was understandable that the Applicant was off with her after that. She confirmed that was understandable but that he had remained polite and respectful with her.
111. The witness provided other evidence, including in respect of the need to go to foodbanks despite the duty being on Hampshire to provide food for young people.
112. The witness agreed that references attributed to the Applicant such as not wanting to stay with ‘lower social class’ were not actually said by the Applicant at all. These were words attributed to him and were not his own words. Similarly asked about her recording of notes that “you made my mum sad” was said now by the witness to be a mis-recording and not something that the Applicant had said. The witness also referred to the Applicant’s property being in a state of disrepair. It was put to the witness that her brief meetings with the Applicant were not sufficient to enable her to come to the views that she did. The witness said that the Taskira and ID documents were not sufficient because they were not computerised documents and just an estimation of the person’s age by a village elder.
Requirements for Expert Evidence
113. For reasons I refer to below, it is necessary to set out why the duties on experts are important and what those duties are. Duties on experts derive from the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Procedure Rules 2008.
114. The Senior President of Tribunals’ Practice Directions of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal dated 18 December 2018 is of significant importance and must be followed by experts and those who instruct experts in this jurisdiction. It aligns with the procedure followed by the courts in criminal law, civil law and family law jurisdictions. A failure to follow the Practice Direction is likely to mean that the expert evidence is not admitted in evidence or lead to no weight or only very limited weight being attached to such expert evidence. A failure to follow the Practice Direction is also likely lead to admonishment of the expert within the published decision of the Upper Tribunal.
115. The Senior President of the Tribunals’ Practice Direction of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, dated 1 November 2024 is in similar terms to the 2018 Practice Directions
116. Paragraph 10 of the 2018 Practice Direction states,
“10. Expert evidence
10.1. A party who instructs an expert must provide clear and precise instructions to the expert, together with all relevant information concerning the nature of the appellant’s case, including the appellant’s immigration history, the reasons why the appellant’s claim or application has been refused by the respondent and copies of any relevant previous reports prepared in respect of the appellant.
10.2. It is the duty of an expert to help the Tribunal on matters within the expert’s own expertise. This duty is paramount and overrides any obligation to the person from whom the expert has received instructions or by whom the expert is paid.
10.3. Expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced by the pressures of litigation.
10.4. An expert should assist the Tribunal by providing objective, unbiased opinion on matters within his or her expertise, and should not assume the role of an advocate. 10.5. An expert should consider all material facts, including those which might detract from his or her opinion.
10.6. An expert should make it clear: (a) when a question or issue falls outside his or her expertise; and (b) when the expert is not able to reach a definite opinion, for example because of insufficient information.
10.7. If, after producing a report, an expert changes his or her view on any material matter, that change of view should be communicated to the parties without delay, and when appropriate to the Tribunal.
10.8. An expert’s report should be addressed to the Tribunal and not to the party from whom the expert has received instructions.
10.9. An expert’s report must:
(a) give details of the expert’s qualifications;
(b) give details of any literature or other material which the expert has relied on in making the report;
(c) contain a statement setting out the substance of all facts and instructions given to the expert which are material to the opinions expressed in the report or upon which those opinions are based;
(d) make clear which of the facts stated in the report are within the expert’s own knowledge;
(e) say who carried out any examination, measurement or other procedure which the expert has used for the report, give the qualifications of that person, and say whether or not the procedure has been carried out under the expert’s supervision;
(f) where there is a range of opinion on the matters dealt with in the report:
(i) summarise the range of opinion, so far as reasonably practicable, and
(ii) give reasons for the expert’s own opinion;
(g) contain a summary of the conclusions reached;
(h) if the expert is not able to give an opinion without qualification, state the qualification; and
(i) contain a statement that the expert understands his or her duty to the Tribunal and has complied and will continue to comply with that duty.
10.10. An expert’s report must be verified by a Statement of Truth as well as containing the statements required in paragraph 10.9(h) and (i).
10.11. The form of the Statement of Truth is as follows:
“I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in my report are within my own knowledge I have made clear which they are and I believe them to be true, and that the opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinion”.
10.12. The instructions referred to in paragraph 10.9(c) are not protected by privilege but cross-examination of the expert on the contents of the instructions will not be allowed unless the Tribunal permits it (or unless the party who gave the instructions consents to it). Before it gives permission, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to consider that the statement in the report or the substance of the instructions is inaccurate or incomplete. If the Tribunal is so satisfied, it will allow the cross-examination where it appears to be in the interests of justice to do so.”
117. Statements of truth must be signed correctly and accurately. In YSA v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2023] UKUT 75 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal made clear that the Upper Tribunal has the contempt powers of the High Court derived from s.25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
The Applicant’s Expert Evidence
118. The Applicant relied on expert evidence by Antonio Giustozzi. His CV refers to him as obtaining his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and that he has been a visiting professor and research fellow including as a freelance consultant researcher since then. He has extensive experience of matters relating to Afghanistan.
119. Dr Giustozzi provided 3 reports. His first is dated 21 October 2024 and is headed a “verification report”. That report complies with the requirements in respect of expert’s declarations. The report states that:
“I have previously given evidence in legal proceedings, including in the immigration field, both in Great Britain, The Netherlands and Australia. I have in some cases in the past declined to prepare expert reports, where, in my view, the account given jarred with my knowledge and understanding of relevant conditions in Afghanistan or historic events.”
120. Dr Giustozzi also said:
“3. Osbornes provided me with a scan of the Tazkira (see below). Because of the way verification takes place, with the issuing authorities comparing pictures (if any), record numbers, signatures, stamps or any other information contained in the document against the information they hold, the original of the document is not required and a copy suffices.
4. I passed on the copy to my researcher Saleem Safi, based in Kunar. Mr. Saleem Safi is a journalist and researcher, who has participated in projects with me in the past, carrying out interviews with police and Taliban in the area. He always performed satisfactorily and reliably in his tasks. In verification, Mr. Safi often found that the documents or the fact that he was tasked to verify were not genuine, adding to my trust for his work. He uses his contacts with local elders and Taliban developed during past projects, to arrange meetings for verification purposes.
5. Mr. Saleem Safi sought to make enquiries about Mr. Atal’s Tazkira by visiting on 21 October 2024 the Kabul Civil Registration Directorate, located in the northern part of the city, and meeting Mr. Naim Pakteen, the directorate’s head of the inspection department. 310 1
6. Mr. Safi shared the copy of Mr. Atal’s Tazkira with Mr. Pakteen and asked him to confirm its authenticity. Mr. Pakteen took the copy, reviewed it and carried out some checks. After a little while he returned to Mr. Safi and informed him that there a match was found in the records and that the Tazkira is to be considered genuine.”
121. Dr Giustozzi prepared a report dated 21 October 2024 for the Birth Registration Card. He said:
“3. Osbornes provided me with a scan of the birth certificate (see below). Because of the way verification takes place, with the issuing authorities comparing pictures (if any), record numbers, signatures, stamps or any other information contained in the document against the information they hold, the original of the document is not required and a copy suffices.
4. I passed on the copy to my researcher Saleem Safi, based in Kunar. Mr. Saleem Safi is a journalist and researcher, who has participated in projects with me in the past, carrying out interviews with police and Taliban in the area. He always performed satisfactorily and reliably in his tasks. In verification, Mr. Safi often found that the documents or the fact that he was tasked to verify were not genuine, adding to my trust for his work. He uses his contacts with local elders and Taliban developed during past projects, to arrange meetings for verification purposes.
5. Mr. Saleem Safi sought to make enquiries about Mr. Atal’s birth certificate by visiting on 21 October 2024 the Afghan Medical Council in Shahr e Naw of Kabul. Mr. Safi notes that because the certificate does not mention the place of birth, the only option was visiting the Council.
6. At the Council Mr. Safi was met by Dr. Hafiz Muhamedi, a member of the Afghan Medical Council. Mr. Safi shared the copy of the certificate and asked Dr. Muhamedi to check it against the records and confirm whether it is genuine or not. Dr. Muhamedi took the copy to the relevant department and after a while, he came back, informing Mr. Safi that a match had been found and that the certificate was determined to be genuine.”
122. The Respondent sought further particulars from Dr Giustozzi. The Respondent asked written questions dated 13 February 2026. Dr Giustozzi replied to those questions on 9 March 2026. He stated as follows:
“1. I was asked by Osbornes Solicitors to respond to the following questions by the Respondent: Do you agree that you are unable yourself to confirm the truth of anything that Mr. Saleem Safi has told you. In particular do you agree that you cannot yourself confirm the truth of paragraph 6 of either report.
Do you further agree that Mr Safi himself would be unable to confirm the truth of what he claims to have been told by Mr Pakteen or Dr Muhamedi.
2. I am not a direct witness of what Mr. Safi did and of the discussions he held in Kabul and I can only convey what he reported to me. Neither Mr. Pakteen nor Dr. Muhamedi showed the originals in the archives to Mr. Safi, so he had to rely on what they told him.
123. The Applicant has relied on the expert evidence of Dr Jawad Hassan Zadeh. He has provided a very lengthy CV. He has also referred within his CV to various unreported cases. These include cases at the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in which he has provided expert reports.
124. Dr Zadeh provided an original report and a first addendum report and then a second addendum. He also attended to provide oral evidence before me.
125. Dr Zadeh’s report of 16 September 2024 dealt with matters that he was not asked to deal with. Such as whether the Applicant was even an Afghan national. Dr Zadeh appears to have arranged for his assistant (also referred to as co-expert by Dr Zadeh) Palwasha Latif to interview the Applicant to check the Applicant’s “fluency, accent and dialect”.
126. Dr Zadeh’s first report concluded:
“Based on the above detailed tests and observations; having compared the Birth Certificate and Taskira issued to [MA] with the right comparative samples; having interviewed him over video call with my co-expert colleague, and after carrying forensic examinations to verify questioned documents; both documents issued to [MA] display the correct hallmarks, correct components, and the correct attributes of genuine documents issued by the Islamic Republic if Afghanistan. In my expert opinion, both documents are genuine.”
127. Following the first addendum report dated 4 February 2026, the Respondent then asked a number of written questions arising out of Dr Zadeh’s reports. Dr Zadeh provided the answers to those questions in a second addendum report dated 10 April 2026. Some of Dr Zadeh’s second addendum said amongst other things that he had prepared some 1,562 expert reports and that he had given evidence in 500 cases in the UK and abroad. He said he had prepared 306 reports in the past 24 months and 50 reports for Osbornes Solicitors, being the solicitors retained by the Applicant in this case.
128. Asked why Dr Zadeh had provided legal submissions within his original report. Dr Zadeh said in response:
“Answer: I have received many Home Office determinations of my own expert reports or I have read expert reports written by other experts operating in the UK. I also mentor other experts and they seek my advice on certain issues. The section Hampshire Council calls 'legal submissions' concern case summaries of the case-law relevant to expert document authentication. These summaries have been added over a long period of time, where I felt it was good practice that they be addressed. I have 26 years of practical experience in English law through interpreting work in the UK court settings, years of research of Afghanistan laws and I have undertaken two Certificate courses on English legal system and Human Rights Law at the St. Georges City, University of London. I am well-placed to provide a summary of case-law that is related to my work. The treatment of documents and expert evidence by the Courts is relevant and, in my view, appropriate to reference.”
129. Dr Zadeh was asked a question about “writing standards” in the following way and Dr Zadeh responded as follows:
“Q8): Of paragraph 39, you state that you have assessed the documents for "writing standards known to belong to the government of Afghanistan" Please explain how the government of Afghanistan has handwriting standards and how you have established what they were at the relevant times.
Answer: Afghanistan's administrations use Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Pashto, and English languages to issue different documents. The lexical terms used in each administration also differs. I have handled Afghan documents for the past 32 years in all my jobs in Afghanistan and in the United Kingdom, and have attained literacy in Afghanistan's languages through dozens of UK-issued qualifications, which has enabled me to become familiar with "writing standards that belong to the government of Afghanistan." The skills and qualifications which have aided me do this are translation qualifications, interpreting qualifications, handwriting analysis trainings, and my most recent MA in Applied and Forensic Linguistics. I hold years of continuous experience in interpreting for the Home Office in the UK as well.”
130. Asked how Dr Zadeh concluded that the Taskira was genuine the following question and answer were provided by him:
“Q25): Please explain on what basis you conclude that the document shown at figure is genuine rather than false.
Answer: Please refer to my initial expert report. It has been explained in paragraphs and 30 pages of information.”
131. In respect of a different case in which Dr Zadeh and his colleague were referred to by the High Court, the following question and answer was set out:
“Q28): Please explain why you continue to offer opinions on facial mapping when you were held not competent to give evidence on this issue in R otao MS v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin) (paragraph 22.1).
Answer: In the above-named case, I and my colleague Palwasha had stated a phrase that the judge believed was not within our expertise. However, even in that case, except the phrase for confirming that "the person we interviewed resembled the photos on his ID documents," the judge agreed with (or did not exclude) the other expert opinions expressed therein. This was a case in which I had stated an opinion on a photograph and resemblance to the document holder. When I and my colleague interview individuals like [MA], it is for the sake of investigating forgery, impersonation (pretending to have a different nationality), counterfeiting and forgery. Please refer to the contents and all the assessments made in the expert report dated 16 September 2024. I have not undertaken facial mapping nor have I asserted expertise in this area.”
132. In respect of whether or not Dr Zadeh had been partisan, the question and answer was as follows:
“Please respond to the suggestion that your report is unsatisfactory and partisan piece of work, that it has failed properly to examine the documents, that is fails to grapple adequately or at all with obvious criticisms or reservations that can be made of the documents, that it expresses opinions on matters in which you have been told you have no expertise, and that for all of these reasons no weight at all should be put on it in judicial decision making.
Answer: I have followed the law regulating the work of experts in the United Kingdom, considered the relevant case-law, followed professional guidelines of forensic examination associations which have held me to be an expert with good standing since 2012. I have followed ethical considerations like taking extra care that people not entitled to Afghan documents do not cheat the asylum system, interviewed the document owner and involved a professional colleague. Lastly, I have reached a professional conclusion that has not been challenged by an alternative forensic examination report. I have no reasons to change my expert opinion as no new evidence is presented to me for re-consideration. It is noteworthy whilst writing that in 1,562 expert reports I have written to 350 firms in countries, in no single case, my expertise has ever been identified as lacking, improper or invalid. An expert report written by me in April 2026 contains dozens of recommendations of judges and asylum decisions makers in the United Kingdom, which I have found as a beacon to my success and professional and personal endeavours in life. My work has never been partisan.”
133. I refer to some of Dr Zadeh’s oral evidence. His evidence was lengthy because it was the subject of detailed cross examination. The evidence was over the course of 2 days to accommodate other witnesses and because Dr Zadeh was due to give evidence at the First-tier Tribunal in a different case. There were several instances of me reminding Dr Zadeh to answer the questions being asked. Dr Zadeh was not always able to remain focused on the questions and unfortunately, he was also occasionally somewhat dismissive of the questions being asked of him.
134. Mr Hocking put to Dr Zadeh that that an impartial expert had to highlight both the matters which tend to support that documents being examined are reliable but the report should also refer to those parts which are unreliable. Dr Zadeh said that he did not deny that forgery of documents exists in Afghanistan but because he did not consider the documents he examined in this case to be unreliable, then he did not need to say there were aspects which showed the documents were unreliable.
135. Mr Hocking pressed Dr Zadeh to explain why he had not said in his first report that that there was an earlier Taskira and not only the one which he had examined for the purposes of the report. Dr Zadeh’s explanation was that “I did not mention school age and how old the person could be because Afghanistan does not have education law like England and they have gone to school. They have legislation and it is not in force. It takes a lot of space and it is irrelevant. It has no relation to me as a forensic investigator.”. Dr Zadeh said further that, “As to why Taskira number 1 was not mentioned. I can set out a lot of things and there is a judgment. But I cannot say so much information which was not relevant. I did not write this at the time. I was assessing: I had knowledge of it and understood it.”
136. Dr Zadeh disagreed that he was being an advocate. Dr Zadeh said he did not agree that there was confirmation bias on his part. Mr Hocking said that he was not suggesting that Dr Zadeh had deliberately misreported matters but that that he had not been open minded when approaching his task as an expert. Dr Zadeh said it was “an incorrect accusation”. Dr Zadeh also disagreed that he had usurped the role of the judge and he said he did not agree. He said he had used “forensic investigation and I have used techniques”. It was put to Dr Zadeh that his report said things such as “I have found” but it was not for him as an expert to make findings and only to report. Dr Zadeh said he disagreed with Mr Hocking and that things were being taken out of context.
137. It was put to Dr Zadeh that there were 3 ways in which a document might be unreliable:
(1) It was not made by the person purported to have made it;
(2) It was made by the person purported to have made it, but then it was altered afterwards; and
(3) It was made by a proper official but it contains incorrect information whether because of a mistake or corruption.
138. It was put to Dr Zadeh that his report only dealt with the first 2 categories. Dr Zadeh was asked why his report did not deal with the third possibility of there being an unreliable document. Dr Zadeh said he thought that there were only 2 categories and that they were interlinked. He said, “experts only address the data in favour of a case or against a case”. Dr Zadeh then went off on a tangent to tell me that there are 8 types of Taskira and spent time explaining them.
139. Dr Zadeh insisted that inspecting scanned copies of the documents as opposed to the originals did not reduce his confidence in the documents being genuine. He said, in effect, that whereas photographs of documents might lose ability to forensically examine for authenticity, scans did not. He said that was because the visible elements remained to be examined. Dr Zadeh did not agree that an age of a document could necessarily be examined from a paper document. As I understood it, he was saying that some persons put important documents safely away and so they do not have the ‘wear and tear’ that older documents might have if they were being handled frequently.
140. Asked what ‘forensic tool’ Dr Zadeh said he was using; it turned out this was the Acrobat Reader programme. He referred to 2 of his trainers having worked for the USA’s FBI.
141. Dr Zadeh insisted that even though there were limitations to his report because he had been provided with scanned documents and not originals, he insisted that the documents were genuine and authentically issued documents. He then said, “based on my examination until someone proves me wrong. I am not saying they are inauthentic or fake. I am not saying one million percent.”
142. Various permutations of how documents could corruptly have been stolen or blank documents stolen and filled in later were put to Dr Zadeh but he disagreed. He said the documents had the hallmarks of being genuine documents.
143. It was put to Dr Zadeh that he had failed to say that the Taskira he had examined was a reissued document. Dr Zadeh merely responded to say that he did not have a scan or the original of the first Taskira and so he did not comment on it.
144. Mr Hocking put to Dr Zadeh that it seemed such an obvious point that any expert properly doing his job would have said “(1) I am aware it is a reissued Taskira and (2) it is in the correct form” Dr Zadeh’s reply was “I did not say that because I did not have evidence of the first Taskira. It is outside of professional documents.”
145. When it was put to Dr Zadeh that the reason he did not say that the Taskira was reissued was because he did not know it was reissued, Dr Zadeh said, “I disagree with that. I totally disagree with that.”.
146. It was put to Dr Zadeh that he had not have given a satisfactory answer why he had not said in his report that it was a reissued Taskira. He said, “I disagree with other cases and formal and not in other cases” but which I did not understand.
147. Dr Zadeh said he was not clear with whom he had spoken at the Applicant’s solicitors office. He said he had received “Different means of instructions, a letter of instruction and e-mail and calls”. Asked if he would provide those e-mails and notes of the telephone calls, Dr Zadeh gave an unclear answer. He said at length about GDPR requiring him to destroy telephone notes after 6 months. He said that someone had told him that.
148. Dr Zadeh was also pressed on why he had taken it upon himself to go further than his instructions to interview the Applicant. He said he did so to establish the authenticity of the instructions and so “I interviewed the owner”. If I understood him correctly, Dr Zadeh said he had worked as an interpreter in 2000 cases, but he also mentioned 5000 cases. He said he was still working as an interpreter. He said Mrs Latif “is assisting me as a co-expert”.
149. Dr Zadeh said he cannot go to Afghanistan and that he was last there in 2007. He said, “I get information in hundreds of different ways”. He said he had handled several hundred Taskira since being in the UK.
150. In re-examination, Dr Zadeh, said, “I am not saying I have checked the truth of the information written in it. I am sorry for using the wrong word.”
151. Dr Zadeh was asked about a decision of Mr Justice Pepperell in respect of a case in which Dr Zadeh also provided an expert report. Dr Zadeh said he did not agree with Ms Benfield that he was not entitled to give his expert option on photographs. Dr Zadeh was referred to question and answer 28 of his second addendum report which stated:
”Q28): Please explain why you continue to offer opinions on facial mapping when you were held not competent to give evidence on this issue in Rotao MS v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin) (paragraph 22.1).
Answer: In the above-named case, I and my colleague Palwasha had stated a phrase that the judge believed was not within our expertise. However, even in that case, except the phrase for confirming that "the person we interviewed resembled the photos on his ID documents," the judge agreed with (or did not exclude) the other expert opinions expressed therein. This was a case in which I had stated an opinion on a photograph and resemblance to the document holder. When I and my colleague interview individuals like [MA], it is for the sake of investigating forgery, impersonation (pretending to have a different nationality), counterfeiting and forgery. Please refer to the contents and all the assessments made in the expert report dated 16 September”
152. Dr Zadeh provided further evidence in respect of the resolution of scans and copies. He referred at length to photocopiers and to the documents but he was not always entirely clear or focused on the questions.
153. Dr Zadeh said, “I would say: to best of my knowledge, I have completed the assignment and job. Those doubts if you are referring and the type of questions… a lot of them are imaginary things and most I can deal with. I am not super human and I am fallible like anyone else. To my knowledge I have assessed everything possible and abided by the rules based on what I understood at the time.”
154. Asked by Ms Benfield about his instructions for this case. Dr Zadeh said that it was his understanding of what he had learned about “security of training and lots of training from various sources and government and police and Red Cross…I just thought until today that documents must not be kept.”
155. Dr Zadeh set out examples of cases in which he would not prepare an expert report.
156. Asked if now reflecting whether as an expert he should have said that it was a second Taskira, Dr Zadeh said, “I do not think it is right to assess impartiality”. He said, “I wrote an expert report like that and it was sent to the Netherlands and 120 pages. I have the ability when you can establish the veracity with 5 pages and so why use 100 pages? What difference could it make to my conclusion”. Dr Zadeh added, “I do not see professionally I would change anything. The fact that it is first, second, third Taskira is not relevant to the forensic examination. I would only make mention if I had the first Taskira.”
Analysis of the Evidence
157. I consider the expert evidence first because it is generally the case that expert evidence is to be used as a tool in assessing credibility and the claim as a whole.
158. I return to Dr Zadeh’s evidence. I acknowledge that Dr Zadeh has set out that he has complied with duties placed on experts. Those duties are there to ensure that errors are not made in the assessment of cases. Courts and Tribunals depend on experts to provide clear, impartial and complete evidence. There have been too many instances in the past of experts not being independent and impartial in their approach.
159. Mr Hocking provided me with written closing submissions prior to him addressing me. He set out his submissions in respect of Dr Zadeh at some length. Those submissions are of some importance and so I refer to them. Part of the Respondent submissions in respect of Dr Zadeh’s evidence in the closing note are as follows:
“As to Dr Zadeh: his evidence is completely unreliable and should be rejected. He appears not to understand the role of an expert. He expected the Tribunal to accept his conclusions and felt that he should not be questioned (see HB 394 para 104 “I have found the documents issued to [MA] to be genuine documents. There is no other expert opinion before the parties or the Tribunal” and SB 93 “raising concerns about documents that have been forensically examined and are found to be genuine cannot be backed up by evidence. It is just an incorrect generalisation.”
His oral evidence was combative in the extreme, in a way that was wholly inappropriate for a supposedly impartial expert assisting the Tribunal. He was unable either to accept or to give a coherent rebuttal of even the most obvious shortcoming of his work. For example, it is obvious that the inability to examine an original document is a more serious limitation that Dr Zadeh allowed…
His work was defective. He did not highlight matters that he should have highlighted to inform the Tribunal’s assessment of the documents. For example, the question of whether the taskira is truly a reissued document is obviously important. There is a problem with the date on the taskira exhibited: it postdates when MA says he started school. That is an issue calling out for investigation. The first and second reports do not mention this at all. His third report declares that there is specific wording that can be found on a reissued taskira (HB 386 41) but does not say if it is to be found in this taskira. In oral evidence he said for the first time that it was (although from the translation he then gave, the Respondent invites the Tribunal to disbelieve that evidence). Why not having seen the “first” taskira was a reason not to refer to this supposedly distinctive wording in the second taskira in any report, as Dr Zadeh repeatedly asserted, makes no sense at all…
He is far too easily pleased. The fact that the Claimant knows what the documents say is barely relevant to whether they are reliable HB 298 para 57...
He exaggerated his testing, for example referring to enlarging a scan in acrobat reader as “using forensic tools/software” HB 301 para 79.
He has overstepped the bounds of his role and instructions in carrying out a linguistic analysis that was not requested or needed (no one has ever suggested the Claimant is not from Afghanistan and even if he was not it would not affect the reliability of the document, only the question of whether it related to the Claimant1) HB 306 para 80 et seq, and continuing to offer opinions about photographs despite a specific indication from a high court judge that he was not qualified to do so HB 298 para 60…
The Respondent says that these shortcomings are so serious that Dr Zadeh cannot be said to have discharged his duties as an expert at all.
160. I find myself having to agree with some of the submissions made by the Respondent. The submissions went even further, but I am not in agreement with those parts.
161. In my judgment, Dr Zadeh was so combative in responses to straightforward questions which were put to him that it was necessary for me to remind him of his role and his duties as an expert on more than one occasion. Despite that, Dr Zadeh continued in the same manner. Whilst I appreciate that Dr Zadeh has told me on numerous occasions that he has completed thousands of reports and has given evidence in hundreds of cases, it is surprising he is not much more aware what reporting and providing evidence as an expert entails. It must be that Dr Zadeh has only ever provided evidence in a small number of age dispute judicial review cases. If Dr Zadeh had provided evidence in ‘hundreds of cases’ previously then he would know that his performance before me is not how experts should present their evidence to a court or tribunal.
162. By way of example, considerable time was spent attempting to ask Dr Zadeh to explain why did not say in his report that he was examining a re-issued Taskira. Dr Zadeh appears to have taken offence at this and then sought to ‘blind with science’ by his continual references to how he is an expert with vast experience having prepared thousands of reports for thousands of cases. Indeed, he told me about cases he has been involved in the USA and the Netherlands. With the greatest respect to Dr Zadeh, he failed to answer simple and straightforward questions. Admitting to inadvertent omissions and making concessions is part of what the court expects of all witnesses. Especially when another way of working or interpreting things is put to them. More so when that witness is an expert witness. Dr Zadeh’s refusal and indeed his rather ‘passive aggressive’ approach to answering questions spoke volumes to me.
163. It is with regret that I conclude that much of what Dr Zadeh was saying to me came to this: He is the expert. He knows what is genuine and what is not. his Therefore his evidence must be accepted. In my judgment Dr Zadeh considered this to so because is an experienced expert. I do not accept Dr Zadeh’s approach.
164. If Dr Zadeh does not know already, then he will be aware following this hearing that the better and more helpful expert witnesses are those who do not take offence at challenges to their reports. They are the ones who instead take the time to patiently explain their methodology, their expertise and their reasons. Put another way, they explain to the layperson what their ‘working out’ is. In this case though, Dr Zadeh in reality sought to present me with an answer but he was not prepared to deal appropriately with probing and questions about the ‘working out’ which led to the answers. Where Dr Zadeh did provide answers, they were largely incoherent or circular. Such as that he knew that the documents were genuine because he had interviewed the Applicant in terms of the Applicant’s language skills and where he hailed from in Afghanistan. The problem being that there was no issue between the parties that the Applicant hailed from Afghanistan and spoke the languages spoken in Afghanistan. The parties had not even asked Dr Zadeh to deal with language or from where in Afghanistan the Applicant hailed from. It still remains baffling to me why a “co-expert” and Dr Zadeh subjected the Applicant to their ‘interview’.
165. I did not get a satisfactory answer to why the Latif/Zadeh co-reporting came about in the first place. I know it is mentioned obliquely in correspondence. As Mr Hocking has said, Pepperell J had found this aspect of Dr Zadeh’s approach to his expert duties troublesome and I do too.
166. I am conscious that Dr Zadeh has a livelihood and he has informed me that apart from preparing thousands of expert reports, he to the present date undertakes interpreter work. Experts know full well that if they fail in their duties as experts then they will be the subject of public rebuke. It is with regret that I conclude that Dr Zadeh albeit not deliberately, has allowed himself to be seduced by unconscious bias. He has not presented all the alternatives within his report and instead has jumped to answers. For example, he would not accept, initially at least, that it was a possibility that the ID documents were obtained from genuine sources but from corrupt officials. I do not know why Dr Zadeh refused to accept that as a possibility. It shows to me Dr Zadeh’s closed mind approach.
167. I have attempted to see if it is possible to separate any parts of Dr Zadeh’s evidence which might be possible to take into account, but having reflected on matters, I conclude that it is not possible to do so without getting into difficulty. I simply do not know how much reliance I can place on Dr Zadeh’s evidence when there are so many issues which arise. In my judgment the whole purpose of the duties on experts is that a judge should not have to dissect the reports and evidence of the expert to attempt to piece together for themselves what might possibly remain reliable. I am fortified in my view because when I look at some of Dr Zadeh’s CV, his selective reference to some of the cases in which his name has been mentioned reads much more like a marketing puff rather and not an expert’s CV to be taken seriously. I vividly recall the oral evidence when Dr Zadeh referred to his ‘forensic tools’ which turned out to merely to be Acrobat Reader. A programme which millions of us have. Hardly a ‘forensic tool’ in my judgment.
168. In my judgment the consequence of Dr Zadeh’s approach is such that I can give no weight to his written or oral evidence. I therefore exclude it from my consideration of the case.
169. I do stress that I place no blame on the Applicant’s solicitors for the situation which has arisen. The Applicant’s solicitors quite properly instructed an expert who said he would and who said he did comply with his expert duties. Indeed, Dr Zadeh was an expert who had said he had prepared many reports before.
170. There was also expert evidence from Dr Giustozzi. The Respondent had the opportunity to have him called as a witness to be cross examined. The Respondent declined that opportunity. The Respondent had asked written questions of Dr Giustozzi. I have referred to the evidence above. Dr Giustozzi has a researcher based in Kunar called Mr Saleem Safi. He is a journalist and researcher. Dr Giustozzi states that, “He always performed satisfactorily and reliably in his tasks. In verification, Mr. Safi often found that the documents or the fact that he was tasked to verify were not genuine, adding to my trust for his work.” Mr Safi had visited the Kabul Civil Registration Directorate. He met with Mr Naim Pakteen, the head of the Directorate’s inspection department. A copy of MA’s Taskira was provided. The head of the Directorate reviewed the document and carried out some checks. A match was found in the records and the Taskira was considered to be genuine.
171. In my judgment, this is evidence which I can consider in the round with the other evidence.
172. In respect of the Birth Registration Card, Mr Saleem Safi visited the Afghan Medical Council. There he spoke with Dr Hafiz Muhamedi, a member of the Afghan Medical Council. A copy of the Birth Registration Card was taken to the relevant department and after a while Dr Muhamedi said that the match had been found and the Birth Registration Certificate was genuine.
173. I also consider this evidence in the round.
174. Mr Hocking submits that Dr Giustozzi was reliant on what Mr Saleem Safi had told him and that neither Mr Pakteen nor Dr Muhamedi showed the originals to Mr Saleem Safi. That is correct because that is what Dr Giustozzi states in response to the written questions asked of him.
175. Mr Hocking states in his written closing submissions that:
“Dr Giustozzi’s evidence (HB 310-313, HB 332-335, and HB 362) is accepted as true in so far as it related to things he himself can give evidence on, namely that he provided scans of the documents to Mr Safi, and that Mr Safi told Dr Giustozzi that he had taken the documents to the government offices referred to, spoken to an official there, and the official had told him that the document was genuine”
176. Mr Hocking also states though that:
“What is not accepted is that Mr Safi was telling the truth, or, if he was, whether the officials he spoke to had in fact carried out proper checks and were telling the truth, or, if they were telling the truth, whether that necessarily indicates the documents are reliable. Completely lacking is any confirmation from Mr Safi himself, or any confirmation from the government offices, or any explanation for why either of those two things could not be provided. Therefore, the Tribunal is asked to discount this evidence entirely.
In the alternative, one possibility for the documents being unreliable is that they have been obtained from official sources but are inaccurate, for example through corruption. Dr Giustozzi’s evidence does not explain whether his checks would or would not have ruled out that possibility and so again is not of great assistance to the Tribunal.”
177. In my judgment, despite the caution and guidance from the decision in Tanveer Ahmed, the Respondent’s submission that Mr Saleem Safi was not telling the truth or that the officials spoken to were not telling the truth is fanciful. In my judgment, Dr Giustozzi’s evidence is clear that he has relied on Mr Saleem Safi, a researcher and journalist, to undertake the tasks. Mr Saleem Safi has provided the names of the individuals that he spoke with and sought the checks of the documents from. Although I accept that corruption exists in Afghanistan, including with official documentation, the Respondent’s submissions have no evidential foundation. What the Respondent submits amounts to suggesting that there is some form of conspiracy that Dr Giustozzi has allowed himself to be duped into by Mr Saleem Safi who had made up that he has undertaken checks with officials in Afghanistan.
178. Perhaps the Respondent’s submissions go further that the named officials are corrupt and have just made up that they made the checks they said had, but in fact they did not. That would be a curious situation because Mr Saleem Safi could just as easily have said that the checks proved negative and he would still have undertaken the task expected of him. I am unable to follow why Mr Saleem Safi would go to the trouble to visit the 2 official locations; have the names of the persons he spoke with but to somehow have made all of that up.
179. Whilst there is a remote possibility that the officials for some unknown reason did not actually make the checks that they say they did, against the background of Dr Giustozzi’s trust in his sources and in Mr Saleem Safim, even that remote possibility seems fanciful. I do take into account that Dr Giustozzi was not asked by the Respondent to attend to provide oral evidence for the more nuanced approach to the document verification.
180. I have considered the submissions in respect of the Birth Registration Card having no mention of the place of birth. It is clear to me the Afghan Medical Council had the confirmation details and they provided them to Mr Saleem Safi. There is a ‘blank’ on the certificate as to whether it was presented to the Department of Civil Registration but Mr Saleem Safi was able to visit the Afghan Medical Council in Kabul to obtain the necessary confirmation. I note Mr Hocking’s submissions on this aspect but in my judgment the overwhelming evidence is that the Afghan Medical Council was able to confirm the authenticity of the certificate. A more nuanced submission was made to me on this aspect. Dr Giustozzi was not given the opportunity to deal with it, but it is another matter I take into account.
181. I turn then to the Respondent’s evidence from Ms Victoria Simmonds. Unfortunately, it is necessary to say that her evidence was poor and one-sided. If I have understood the Respondent’s approach to her evidence correctly, then there is no great reliance by the Respondent on that evidence in any event.
182. Ms Simmonds had no real experience in dealing with age assessments and she moved to kinship social work after her period working with refugees with Hampshire Council. Whilst I accept that providing evidence can make people nervous, even those who are professionals, the evidence initially was so confusing that Ms Simmonds did not even know if the dates she had provided in her witness statement were accurate because she could not recall when she had met with the Applicant and when she had prepared her witness statement.
183. Ms Simmond was a newly qualified social worker. I accept that one has to start a career, but Ms Simmonds did not even undertake basic fairness tasks such as to have an interpreter when discussing matters with the Applicant and she did not make contemporaneous notes. It is surprising to say the least why she felt it necessary to give a “definitive view” about the Applicant’s age when that was not called for. The extensive cross examination about the e-mails was surprising evidence. There is something underlying why Ms Simmonds did and said what she did and I am unable to pinpoint it precisely, but it is clear to me that Ms Simmonds took a biased approach.
184. I turn next to the Respondent’s age assessment. I conclude that there are several deficiencies with it.
185. Firstly, the Respondent had conducted an earlier age assessment and withdrew it. Yet the second age assessors still read the first age assessment. This was bound to have influenced the second age assessment. As Ms Benfield states,
“There is specific reference in the age assessment to the detail of what MA was recorded to have said in the first withdrawn assessment, by way of example:
a. When discussing MA’s age when he left Afghanistan the social workers said “In the last assessment you were unable to tell the assessors how old you were when you left Afghanistan, but now you can remember this is a worrying inconsistency” [D478]. This point is again repeated in the minded to session when it was put to MA “You told the previous Age assessors you did not know your age when you left Afghanistan, however you alter said you were 13 when you left” [D489].
b. When discussing how old MA was when he got his Tazkira the social workers said “But in the last Age assessment you told the assessors you were 6 when you were issued this” [D478].
c. In the minded to, the social workers are recorded to have said “During your last age assessment you were challenged on your Tazkira making you age 10, which would mean you started school at 10” [D489].
d. On the Tazkira, the social workers then said to MA “There is no mention of the 2nd Taskira throughout the age assessment and this is recorded verbatim” [D489].
e. In the first minded to session, the social workers said “In the first age assessment you stated you started school age 7, not age 6. Why has this changed?” [D487].”
186. As Ms Benfield submits, and with which I entirely agree, the difficulty which arises from the social workers erroneous approach was articulated in R (GE)(Eritrea) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1406 (Admin) at [§90]:
“I am troubled too that the second age assessors were made aware that previous assessments of GE's age had found her to be older than 18. As this was the crucial question which the assessors were themselves to consider - a difficult enough exercise in any circumstances, but particularly in a case such as this where GE possessed no documentation of any kind - I see no good reason for providing this information to the assessors: the 14 risks of introducing unconscious bias, and compromising the independence of the assessors' own conclusions, seem to me to be obvious.”
187. The problems continue with age assessment because the age assessors failed to take Shona Walne’s evidence or Dr Giustozzi’s evidence into account. It is not clear why the age assessors failed to do so but that was a serious omission. This evidence could have made a difference if the age assessors had factored it in their decision.
188. I am also troubled by the reasoning of the age assessors whereby despite knowing that physical appearance is an unreliable indicator of age, they nonetheless relied heavily on physical appearance anyway. They also relied on photographs which included a very small Home Office black and white photograph. That was not a good indicator of age in any event.
189. In my judgment these errors in the age assessment were of such a fundamental nature that it affects the veracity of the age assessment as a whole. I have derived no real benefit from the age assessment in terms of assessing the Applicant’s age.
190. I deal then with the Applicant’s own evidence. I had the benefit of seeing him sit opposite me during the 4 day hearing. Whilst I am well aware of the caution in respect of demeanour and physical appearance, it is worth stating that the Applicant is small, his build is small and he has dark hair with no facial hair. I have been shown various photographs taken of him and I can see that his build has always been small and that he is short in those photographs too. Some of the photographs were taken by the local authority. None of this is decisive. It is a description of what I saw.
191. I heard from the Applicant through an interpreter. The Equal Treatment Bench Book makes clear that even when a witness can speak some English it is advisable in formal settings, such as for a court hearing, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding in what is being said or asked. For that reason, even though the Applicant did occasionally appear to want to speak in English, I reminded him to speak in his language.
192. My observations of the Applicant during his evidence was that he appeared somewhat frustrated at some of the questions because they had been asked of him so many times previously. Including in the 2 age assessments over numerous days, by staff at the local authority and by others, including for the purpose of preparing his witness statements. I had to remind the Applicant at one stage to focus on the questions and to put his frustration to one side.
193. My impression of the Applicant was also that he wished to provide such assistance as he was able to the questions being asked, albeit he occasionally showed frustration in being asked what he thought were the same questions in a different guise.
194. In my judgment, the Applicant provided evidence which was largely consistent with what he has said previously. Indeed, when recounting events, it is rare that a witness will remember everything precisely in the way they had explained it previously. Especially when a witness is recounting several years of history from when they were aged 6.
195. I am well aware though that a witness can rehearse evidence and can present themselves in a way which gives the impression that they are telling the truth even though they are not. Therefore, whilst I conclude that there is nothing of any significance which is inconsistent with the Applicant’s evidence or that there is a glaring omission, I conclude that I cannot make a decision on the Applicant’s age on the Applicant’s evidence alone.
196. I therefore consider the other evidence alongside the Applicant’s evidence.
197. The evidence of the 3 professional witnesses who gave evidence was compelling. In my judgment, Mr Hocking asked relevant questions of each of the 3 professional witnesses. He was right to do so because their evidence was first hand observations of the Applicant over relatively lengthy periods of time. Their observations were of the Applicant in every day situations. Such as in the placement. It is difficult to continue with a pretence over days, weeks and months.
198. Whilst the professional witnesses are not age assessors, they each have extensive experience of working with children and young people. Whilst I accept Mr Hocking’s underlying submission that the professional witnesses were not looking to assess age and it was their job to offer services, the witnesses provided compelling evidence that in fact they would have sought assistance if they had ever thought that the Applicant was aged more than his claimed age.
199. Therefore whilst I accept Mr Hocking is correct that some of the evidence of not being able to care for himself can also be explicable by the Applicant being unfamiliar with the way things work in the UK and he was a new arrival to the UK, the depth and detail of the professional witnesses of the sheer number of things they observed over a lengthy period of time in which the Applicant needed help and reassurance suggests to me that the Applicant is of a young age.
200. I have referred to the professional witnesses in detail above. I accept their evidence. It was clear, open minded and presented professionally and impartially. Each of the witnesses made concessions where necessary, such as that some of their observations could have been because the Applicant was unfamiliar with things and not because he was young. What particularly stood out was Ms Mary Matasva’s evidence that she did not accept at face value what she was being told and was not there as a friend to the Applicant. If she had concerns about the Applicant’s age then she would have raised those concerns. Both Ms Matasva and the other professional witnesses were clear that their safeguarding duties for the other young people in their accommodation made it essential that they spoke up if they thought that the Applicant was felt by them to be an adult or if he was displaying behaviours as an adult. In my judgment the lengthy observations of the Applicant by each of these witnesses is strong and independent evidence of the Applicant’s age.
201. Bringing all of the evidence together the evidence of Dr Giustozzi is reliable evidence that the Taskira and Birth Registration Certificate are genuine documents. I accept the evidence that Mr Saleem Safi made the checks at that he spoke with the two separate officials. I accept too that the officials confirmed with him that the documents were in accordance with the copies had provided. I accept too though that there is a remote possibility that the officials in Afghanistan merely told Mr Saleem Safi what he wanted to hear and did not make the necessary checks at all. I therefore consider the remaining evidence.
202. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that he did not know his precise age when he left Afghanistan because it was not something that which was important to him or his family. His mother is illiterate and so his paternal uncle. Birthdays and similar events to mark age are not something that this family did in Afghanistan.
203. The Applicant had a long journey over a long period of time from Afghanistan to the UK. I accept that the Applicant remained in Belgium for some time and that when there he was sent copies of his Taskira and Birth Registration Card by his paternal uncle to his mobile telephone via WhatsApp. The Applicant also had Facebook social media. Whilst the evidence has not been entirely satisfactory about provenance in terms of the transmission of documents, I conclude that it is more than likely that travelling through various countries and across the Channel would not make it easy to retain possessions, even mobile telephones and for them to then work for months and years without issue. We all know from our own electronic devices that they need repair or replacing from time to time and that things such as battery life begin to diminish.
204. Whilst I have considered the submissions and cross examination that it is not likely that the Applicant was required to have a new Taskira after the first Taskira, I conclude that the error in the Applicant’s father’s name in the first Taskira when he was aged 6 or 7 for school registration purposes was not initially an issue raised by the Applicant’s school, but that later at age around 10 the school had wanted this to be corrected. The Applicant’s description of having gone with his father in a vehicle to Kabul and meeting the “well dressed man” is not something that could have been easily made up by him.
205. What also initially seemed to be irrelevant evidence about the fortified biscuits provided by UNICEF now seems particularly persuasive to me. I can see that before children were given these fortified biscuits, UNICEF and the school wished to ensure that they were given only to those whose records appear to match or to be correct. That thereby alerted the school to the error and so the Applicant was required to go with his father to have his Taskira amended. Once at the offices, the officials told the Applicant that the Taskira could not be amended but instead a new Taskira was required. The Applicant’s description of having to go to a shop to have his photographs taken and then to provide them to the ‘petition writers’ is detailed evidence which appears to me to be wholly convincing. I therefore conclude that there were good reasons why the Taskira was reissued and I accept the evidence that it was reissued.
206. The Applicant’s journey is not an unusual one and one that the Upper Tribunal hears very frequently, even from teenagers. The Upper Tribunal has cases transferred to it from the High Court because of its experience in dealing with protection claims and the journeys that applicants might make.
207. Whilst the Applicant was cross examined at some length about his work at the mechanics, considering what he actually explained was that he worked there in the mornings before going to school in the afternoon. He assisted with passing things and working on tyres. Whilst the Applicant was young and doing work which we would only expect of a 15 or 16 year old in this country, again work in war torn countries by boys when learning the job as a mechanic or farmer or the like is not uncommon.
208. I found the Respondent’s submissions that the Applicant would have received education and support whilst he was travelling through Europe to be curious against a backdrop of Ms Simmonds’ evidence that the Applicant is not given all that a child would have been entitled to even here in the UK.
209. I have considered the evidence about shaving of arms in gyms. As the Applicant explained and which I accept, many shave their arms because they think it makes them look better in the gym. I accept that the Applicant wished to copy them. Indeed, I am well aware that whether for cycling, weights in the gym or similar, males do shave their arms and legs for image purposes. This is no magic bullet evidence that this 17 year old was trying to hide his age. The Applicant told the age assessors he shaved his forearms and explained that it was for image purposes and that he was also thinking of getting a tattoo. That is not unusual for a 17 year old to do.
Final Analysis
210. It is not necessary to consider every submission made by the parties and to analyse every piece of evidence, but in my judgment, there are 3 pieces of evidence which are compelling.
211. First, are the extensive observations over long periods of time of the Applicant by the 3 professional witnesses in which each of those professionals, who have their own regulations, are convinced that the Applicant is the age he claims.
212. Second is the evidence of the Applicant himself which I found to be consistent, logical and coherent. I accept his evidence that there is a difference in the Afghan calendar and the Gregorian Calendar. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that where others, such as the local authority, have recorded his date of birth as 1/1/2007 that was their error and not his. In any event the year of birth was almost always recorded as 2007 and the few months difference is not what the Respondent contends for in this case in any event. As Ms Benfield states, for example some of the records state at page 824 and 777 of the bundle:
21.10.2007 – Child looked after statutory visit of 19.01.2024, recording “We used a date converter to check your DOB and the conversion showed your DOB as being 21/10/2007 making you 16” [824].
24th of the 6th or the 7th month of 2007 but you think it’s the 7th month” – section 47 risk assessment [777]
213. Third is the evidence of Dr Giustozzi in respect of the document verification. I have considered that evidence carefully and it appears to me to be strong evidence of the Applicant’s Taskira and Birth Registration Certificate being genuine documents and genuinely obtained.
214. The case law makes clear that assessing age is not an exact science and it is not. Indeed, assessing age of those between 16 to 20 can be even more difficult. This Applicant was not much off the age 18 when his age was assessed by the local authority.
Conclusion
215. Mr Hocking has said and done all that he can on behalf of the Respondent with written and oral submissions of a high quality, but I am unable to agree with him in respect of the Applicant’s age.
216. Therefore, considering the extensive evidence as a whole, I conclude that the Applicant’s age is as he claims it to be. Namely, his date of birth is 16 October 2007. Therefore, at the time of the assessment of his age by the Respondent, the Applicant was under the age of 18.
217. I have considered whether a different date of birth might apply in line with the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (on the application of AI) v Berkshire Council [2025] EWCA Civ 136. Having carefully done so, I conclude that I cannot apply a different date of birth to the Applicant in view of the weighty evidence which sufficiently points towards the Applicant’s date of birth being that which he claims it to be.
218. That is my judgment. I ask counsel to provide with a minute of the order and dealing with consequential matters, including costs.
~~~~0~~~~
Postscript.
Following my judgment having been circulated in draft, at my request, counsel provided me with an agreed draft order. That included in respect of costs and consequential matters. I have approved the order. I am grateful to both counsel for their helpful written and oral submissions.