Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL JR-2025-LON-003816
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

BETWEEN:

THE KING
(on the application BSB)
Applicant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
and

THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON
Interested Party

DRAFT ORDER

BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce

HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard from Ms H Foot of counsel for the Applicant and from Lord Murray of Blidworth of counsel for the Respondent at a fact-finding hearing on 9-10 June 2026

IT IS DECLARED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s date of birth is 14 April 2007.

(2) The Applicant should hereafter be treated in accordance with his claimed age and provided with support and services on that basis by the Interested Party, the London Borough of Hillingdon, in accordance with the Children Act 1989.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Applicant’s claim for judicial review is allowed for the reasons in the attached judgment.

(2) The Respondent’s age assessment dated 6 March 2025 is quashed.

(3) The order for anonymity made by Upper Tribunal Judge Church dated 24 September 2025 remains in force.

(4) The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs of the claim, to be assessed if not agreed.

(5) The Respondent shall make a payment on account in respect of the Applicant’s costs in the sum of £10,000 within 21 days of the date of this Order, pursuant to paragraph 10(10) of the Upper Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2008.

(6) There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs, in accordance with the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
29 June 2026

Case No: JR-2025-LON-003816

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

15 June 2026

Before:

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE

Between:

THE KING
on the application of

BSB
Applicant

- and -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON
Interested Party

Hearing dates: 9-10 June 2026
Field House, London

For the Applicant: Ms H Foot of Counsel instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors
For the Respondent: Lord Murray of Blidworth, Counsel instructed by the Government Legal Department

J U D G M E N T
1. The Applicant is an Eritrean national. He has permission to seek judicial review of the 6 March 2025 decision of the Respondent, by the operation of her agency the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), made in respect of the Applicant’s age.
2. The Applicant states that he was born on 14 April 2007. That would mean that he was aged 16 years, 11 months and 8 days old when he arrived in the UK and sought asylum on the 22 March 2024. The Applicant contends that he should always have been treated as a child, and pursuant to the provisions of The Children Act 1989, today be considered a “former looked after child”, with all the benefits that such status can bring.
3. The Respondent rejects this, and has assessed him as having been born on the 14 February 2005. This would mean that the Applicant was an adult on arrival, and therefore not entitled to any of the statutory benefits conferred by The Children Act 1989 and related legislation and policy.
4. Because it is the London Borough of Hillingdon that would be liable to provide for the Applicant should he succeed in this claim, they have been joined as an ‘interested party’. They did not however take any part in the proceedings, nor make any submissions in writing.

The Proceedings
5. The proceedings took place over two days. On the first day the Applicant gave live evidence, and was extensively cross examined by Lord Murray over some 3½ hours. The Applicant has been diagnosed as having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression. He has also been recognised both as a refugee and as a victim of trafficking. As a result he was treated as a vulnerable witness, in accordance with the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Appellant Guidance. He was offered regular breaks in his evidence, two of which he took. At the close of his evidence I told the Applicant that he was welcome to stay at court, or he could leave if he wished. He said that he would like to go home, and did not return to court for day two. In the afternoon of day one I also heard from a second witness, Ms Erinç Argün Kayim, a Children’s Advisor with the Refugee Council.
6. On the morning of day two Lord Murray made an application to adduce a further set of documents, relating to an attempt by the Applicant to gain entry to the UK though Dunkerque port on the 17 February 2024. Ms Foot opposed the late submission of these documents. Having heard their respective submissions I decided that the documents should be admitted. My reasoning was as follows.
7. No good reason was given as to why these documents were not disclosed in accordance with directions. Lord Murray suggested it was because they bore an alias for the Applicant and so would not have come up on any search against his name. That is, with respect to Lord Murray, unfounded supposition on his part. The alias used by the Applicant on the 17 February 2024 was plainly known to the Respondent, since it is mentioned in the age assessment itself. Furthermore biometrics were taken on that date and so any search on the Home Office record relating to the Applicant would have revealed this event and the documents it generated. Their omission was simply a failure on the part of the Respondent to properly prepare her case.
8. That said, the documents are plainly relevant. On that date the Applicant is recorded as having given a false name and the date of birth 14 February 2005. That being the first date of birth he is ever recorded as having offered, it is the one settled upon by the NAAB social workers who conducted the age assessment. That this was the case was however already a feature of the evidence before me: as I say, it is all relied upon in the age assessment, which reproduces a photograph of the Applicant said to have been taken by Immigration Officers on that date. The Applicant himself acknowledged in his oral evidence that he had made “multiple” attempts to gain entry to the UK, and that he had on those occasions given what he now says were a false name and false dates of birth. He had said the same thing during his age assessment. He told me, in his witness statements and in oral evidence, that he had done so under pressure from the adults he was then travelling with. There is therefore no real prejudice to the Applicant in these documents being admitted.
9. I gave Ms Foot an opportunity to take instructions on this new evidence, including contacting the Applicant by telephone with the assistance of a Amharic interpreter. Having done so she informed me that the Applicant maintained the position he had taken in his oral evidence, namely that he agreed that he had made multiple attempts to enter the UK through the port at Dunkerque, and had on those occasions provided what he says are false biographical details. That being the case, it was not necessary for the Applicant to be recalled to give further evidence on the new documents.
10. The parties made their submissions, and I reserved my decision, which I now give.

Legal Framework
11. There is no dispute about the approach that I must take. Both parties referred me to the principles to be applied in age assessments as they are summarised by Mrs Justice Thornton in R (AB) v Kent County Council [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin) [at 21]:

“Counsel were agreed that the list below sets out the relevant guidelines as they currently stand. The list is an amalgamation of the requirements in Merton and subsequent caselaw, summarised in VS v The Home Office [2014] EWHC 2483 (QB) and the summary in the most recent relevant Home Office guidance ("Assessing Age" 23 May 2019). For ease of reference I have grouped the guidelines into headings as follows:

Purpose of the assessment

(1) The purpose of an age assessment is to establish the chronological age of a young person.

Burden of proof and benefit of the doubt

(2) 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.

(3) The decision needs to be based on particular facts concerning the particular person and is made on the balance of probabilities.

(4) There is no burden of proof imposed on the applicant to prove his or her age.

(5) The 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.

Physical appearance and demeanour

(6) The decision maker cannot determine age solely on the basis of the appearance of the applicant, except in clear cases.

(7) Physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis for assessment of chronological age.

(8) Demeanour can also be notoriously unreliable and by itself constitutes only 'somewhat fragile material'. Demeanour will generally need to be viewed together with other things including inconsistencies in his account of how the applicant knew his/her age.

(9) The finding that little weight can be attached to physical appearance applies even more so to photographs which are not three-dimensional and where the appearance of the subject can be significantly affected by how photographs are lit, the type of the exposure, the quality of the camera and other factors, not least including the clothing a person wears.

Conduct of the assessment

(10) The assessment must be done by two social workers who should be properly trained and experienced.

(11) The applicant should be told the purpose of the assessment.

(12) An interpreter must be provided if necessary.

(13) 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.

(14) 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. Assessors should be aware of the customs and practices and any particular difficulties faced by the applicant in his home society.

(15) The interview must seek to obtain the general background of the applicant including his family circumstances and history, educational background and his activities during the previous few years

(16) An assessment of the applicant's credibility must be made if there is reason to doubt his/her statement as to his/her age.

(17) The applicant should be given the opportunity to explain any inconsistencies in his/her account or anything which is likely to result in adverse credibility findings.

Preliminary decision

(18) 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. 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.

The decision and reasons

(19) In coming to the conclusion the local authority must have adequate information to make a decision independent of the Home Office's decision.

(20) Adequate reasons must be given.

(21) The interview must be written up promptly.

‘Accepted Facts’
12. Before I turn to focus on the matter of the Applicant’s age, it would be helpful to both writer and reader if I set out some background about the Applicant and his interactions with the authorities in the United Kingdom. I characterise what follows in this section as ‘accepted facts’ because they are matters that were not materially challenged before me. They are derived in part from the Applicant’s evidence about his background and what led him to claim asylum in the UK: this evidence was in substance accepted by the Secretary of State on 7 April 2025 when she granted the Applicant refugee status. They are also derived from the Applicant’s evidence about what happened to him in Libya en route to the UK when he was held captive for the purpose of ransom and/or forced labour: this element of the account led the Competent Authority to find, on 15 August 2024, that there were ‘conclusive grounds’ to accept that the Applicant is a victim of trafficking. I have also drawn upon the Home Office records relating to the Applicant.
13. The Applicant states that he was born in Eritrea to Eritrean parents. When he was approximately 3 years old he and his mother left Eritrea and went to live in Ethiopia as refugees. They lived in a suburb of Addis Ababa with other Eritreans. At some stage in his teens the Applicant sadly lost his mother. She had become unwell and died shortly thereafter, leaving him in the care of two of her female friends, also Eritreans. Shortly after his mother’s death these friends told the Applicant that they all had to leave Ethiopia. Things had become difficult for them because of the political situation in Ethiopia and they were facing harassment from the authorities.
14. The Applicant and his mother’s friends left Ethiopia, crossing by foot into Sudan, and then into the Libyan province of Kufra. Once in Kufra the group were apprehended by local militia/traffickers. The Applicant was separated from his mother’s friends and held for a period that he estimates to be about two months in some kind of storage facility in the desert. He was beaten and forced to undertake hard construction work, because he did not have any money to pay these people what they demanded. He was abused and ill-treated on a daily basis, including having boiling water deliberately spilt on his feet because he had been “too slow” preparing dinner. The Applicant is an Orthodox Christian but during this captivity was required to perform Islamic prayer. The Applicant states that there were as many as 40 other nationalities being held by this group, but it was other Eritreans who looked out for him. They supported him and looked out for him and one day his captors came and told him that someone had paid his ‘ransom’ so he was free to leave. The Applicant left the warehouse in Kufra and following others, made his way to Tripoli.
15. The Applicant estimates that he spent 1 year and 4 months in Tripoli. When he was there he was taken in by two Eritrean men, Muhammad and Younas. They did not beat him, but they did require him to work for his food and board. He would work all day doing things like collecting cardboard and farm work. They lived on bread and coca-cola.
16. In approximately December 2023 Muhammad and Younas told the Applicant that they should all leave and try to get to Europe. They travelled to the coast where they boarded a small boat to cross the sea to Italy. The boat was packed with people – the Applicant estimates 70 or 80 people – and it repeatedly took on water after the engine stopped working. They had been at sea for one night and one day, and as the second night fell they were rescued by a larger boat. The Applicant believes that it was operated by a charity. They were all taken to the Italian coast, and from there to Milan. The Applicant states that he was held in a detention camp for about a week, and fingerprinted before being released with some papers. Muhammad and Younas told him to throw them away, which he did.
17. The three of them continued their journey by train to France, and then to Belgium. The Applicant believes he spent 2½ months in Belgium, receiving support from the Red Cross and begging on the street. It was from there that the Applicant made his attempts to enter the UK.
18. The first recorded attempt took place on 17 February 2024 when the Applicant was apprehended at the port of Dunkerque inside the area controlled by UK Border Force around the Channel Tunnel. Documents now produced by the Respondent show that on that occasion his name was recorded as ‘B___ D___’ and his date of birth as 14 February 2005. Having been served with relevant paperwork the Applicant was released back onto the French side of the ‘border’.
19. Three days later, on the 20 February 2024, the Applicant was apprehended for a second time at Dunkerque. He was found in the back of a lorry with five other Eritrean nationals. On this occasion he was again served with what is known as an ‘IS91’, that is to say a notice authorising detention for the purpose of examination by the immigration authorities. This document, produced before me, shows that the name ‘B____ D____’ has been written in the space for ‘name’. It has then been crossed out and replaced with the name that is referred to in these proceedings as ‘BSB’. B___ D___ is the name which the Applicant had given three days earlier. He now denies that it is his name. BSB is the anonymised version of the name that he now maintains to be his true name. It is the name that he is called by the Home Office and in which all his official refugee documentation has been issued. It is a two part Eritrean name. The date of birth recorded on the IS91 has also been altered. It is not entirely clear but it appears as if, in handwritten script, someone has entered the date ’14/02/2024’. The ‘2024’ has then been struck through and the year ‘2007’ entered. The final digit ‘7’ has then been written over so that the final version reads ‘14/02/2006’.
20. The next interaction with UK Border Force came the following month, when on the 21 March 2024 the Applicant, along with other men, emerged from a HGV lorry at Folkestone and claimed asylum. The records of that interaction produced before me consist of two documents. The first is the ‘Initial Contact and Asylum Registration Questionnaire’, completed by an immigration officer at Folkestone with the assistance of an Amharic interpreter on the phone, the day after the Applicant arrived. The Applicant here states his name to be BSB, but adds to it a further, third part of the name which is recorded as ‘Debremeskel’. He states his date of birth as 14 April 2007, although the officer has noted next to this that he has been ‘age assessed as 14 April 1996’. It is pertinent to note that this Questionnaire shows that during this interaction with Border Force officials the Applicant was asked a number of biographical details which required him to provide further dates, a matter I shall return to below. At the end of the interview he is asked if he would like to amend anything, and he says “I would like to amend the first question. I was not born in 1996. I was born in 2007. I am 17 next month”. The second document generated that day was a notice informing the Applicant that two Home Office members of staff had assessed his physical appearance and demeanour to very strongly suggest that he is “significantly over 18 years of age”.
21. Since the Applicant has arrived in the UK he has was seen by Dr David Rigby, a Psychiatrist, in June 2024, and by Dr Sophie Jones, Clinical Psychologist in February 2026. No issue is taken by the Respondent about these conclusions, or the competency and expertise of the doctors who reached them.

The Age Assessment Process and Findings
22. As I say, on 22 March 2024, the day after the Applicant had emerged from the lorry in Folkestone, two officers of the UK Border Force determined that the Applicant was not telling the truth when he said that he was born on 14 April 2007. They believed his appearance to “very strongly” suggest that he was in fact 28 years old, born in 1996. This assessment was based solely on his physical appearance and demeanour. This finding resulted in the Applicant initially being accommodated in a hotel for adult asylum-seekers in Hillingdon.
23. On 17 April 2024 social workers from the London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) undertook what is known as a ‘brief enquiry’ into the Applicant’s claimed age. The Applicant was interviewed, and gave the same account that I have summarised above. The social workers also had regard to their own observations about his appearance. In a report dated 10 May 2024 the social workers rejected the Applicant’s claims about his age, principally on the basis of his appearance, but also because they did not find it credible that he could not give the date of his mother’s death. They concluded that he was likely aged between 22 and 25. This enquiry was subsequently withdrawn by LBH for a failure to follow the guidelines in R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689.
24. I interpolate here that shortly after that brief enquiry the Applicant was referred into the National Referral Mechanism for the identification of victims of trafficking and that by 15 August 2024 the Competent Authority had found ‘conclusive grounds’ to accept that the Applicant had been a victim of trafficking whilst he was in Libya.
25. On 1 October 2024 LBH referred the Applicant’s case to NAAB. The referring social worker, Ncumisa Mdidimba reported:

“Based on all information gathered during my involvement, including [BSB]’s oral account and credibility, I believe that [BSB] is older than his claimed age of 17, even with allowing for the impact of the life issues and journey he reports. We are aware that where definitive evidence is not available, the benefit of the doubt can be considered. However, even the social workers that completed the initial brief enquiry believe that [BSB] has completed his adolescent stages / post puberty for some time. Having regard to the information above, the social worker believe that [BSB] is significantly older than his claimed age; and his age range is above 22 years old.”
26. This referral resulted in an assessment by NAAB, undertaken by two experienced social workers, Tanya Nelson and Fabien Bunani, over the course of five meetings with the Applicant during November 2024. Also present was a social worker from LBH, Kevin Osage, an appropriate adult and, virtually, an Amharic interpreter. A ‘minded-to’ meeting took place on 9 December 2024 and on 29 January 2025 Ms Nelson and Mr Bunani concluded their assessment by finding that the Applicant’s true date of birth was 14 February 2005. The report produced as a result of this assessment contains the assessors’ record of the Applicant’s responses to their questions, and notes the documentary evidence that they had regard to, produced by the Interested Party, the Competent Authority and the Home Office.
27. I confirm that I have read the age assessment in its entirety, as well as the witness statements of Ms Nelson (dated 19 January 2026) and Mr Bunani (15 January 2026). I summarise here only the parts that I found most relevant to my decision.
28. The Applicant was adamant throughout the process that his true date of birth is the 14 April 2007. He knows this because his mother told him. They used to celebrate his birthday every year. The first one he can remember was when he was five years old, which would have been 2012. He used to write his name and date of birth in his school books. He did not however recall ever having had any official documentation prior to his arrival in the UK. The assessors noted that official documentation would, or at least could, be issued by the governments of both Eritrea and Ethiopia, but acknowledged that “for many Eritrean migrants, life in Ethiopia remained dangerous and unsettled” so it was possible that the Applicant’s mother was unable to regularise her position by getting ‘papers’.
29. The Applicant told assessors that he attended school from the age of 5, until 2012 when he was 13. It was about a 20 minute walk away and he went twice a week. It was run by a charity and when they ceased operations he had to stop going. When he was not attending school he would spend the days playing football and other games with other children in his compound. His mother used to make him to go to bed between 8pm and 9pm. He attended church regularly. He did not have a television or internet at home but used to enjoy watching cartoons at his neighbour’s house.
30. The Applicant shared some personal history such as where he had lived in Ethiopia and who was in his family. He said that he had no knowledge of his paternal background because he never met his father. His mother had died in May 2022 and three months after this, in the August, her two friends had told him that they should all leave Ethiopia. They had told him that the situation was becoming unsafe because of the war and that people without IDs were being arrested. His narrative of travelling through Sudan and into Libya with these two women is as I have summarised it above. He was separated from them and forced to work for approximately two months whilst being held captive somewhere in the desert province of Kufra. When he was released he travelled with others to Tripoli and from there was accompanied by two older Eritrean men, Muhammad and Younas. The Applicant told the age assessors that he thought they were in their mid to late twenties. He lived with them and did various jobs. He told the assessors that he did not view this as forced labour, since they put a roof over his head, clothed and fed him.
31. Again, the narrative recorded in the age assessment broadly accords with what the Applicant told immigration officers when he claimed asylum, and under cross examination in the present proceedings. After living with Muhammad and Younas for about a year and 4 months in Tripoli, they boarded a small boat together with about 70-80 other people of multiple nationalities. They were rescued by a big boat called the ‘Seawatch 5’ and taken to Italy. After about a week there, Muhammad and Younas took the Applicant by train to France. They did not buy tickets and had to hide on the train. In Paris they met with other ‘Habesha’ people (this term is used throughout the written evidence: at hearing the interpreter explained that it is a general term which means people of Ethiopian/Eritrean origin). They slept rough under a bridge for a few days and then moved on to Belgium. He believes that this was a few days after New Year’s Day in 2024. He then spent about two months in Belgium, sleeping rough.
32. The Applicant told assessors that in March 2024 it had been very cold and raining in Brussels, so he had followed four other individuals into a lorry full of cardboard boxes. He said that this was to get out of the cold. He had fallen asleep and when he woke up he was in the UK. The last time that he saw Muhammad and Younas had been the day before he got in that lorry.
33. In respect of his life now he is in the UK the Applicant told the assessors that he would shower each morning and meet with his friends to go to college. By the date of the assessment he was living in a semi-independent placement and he said that he and his friends would meet each other at their places and play table-tennis, pool or PlayStation together. They would also go out and play football. He continued to attend Orthodox Church whilst in London. He said that he had been able, from the age of 10, to manage his own personal hygiene and do chores like going to the shops. Since his mother’s passing he took on greater responsibilities like doing laundry, and when in Libya, Muhammad and Younas taught him how to cook things like macaroni. In his semi-independent living placement he had taken on more responsibilities including managing his time effectively, although he was struggling to budget and was being assisted by his key worker with that.
34. The Applicant told the assessors that he started shaving when he was 16 in order to encourage hair growth. At first it was every few months and by the date of the assessment he was doing it every 3-4 weeks.
35. As well as this narrative provided by the Applicant, Ms Nelson and Mr Bunani had regard to the views expressed by LBH social workers (see above at §25) and submissions made on the Applicant’s behalf by Duncan Lewis Solicitors, including the statement of Ms Kayim (which I summarise below). They also had regard to the Home Office records.
36. Having taken all of that into account they found that they were ‘minded-to’ find him to be an adult. At a final meeting with the Applicant the age assessors put several additional questions to him. In response to these questions he said that his mother had told him “some” information about his father, namely that he had disappeared from a military camp in Eritrea and so “they” used to come and ask her questions. He believed that he was the youngest in the group that travelled across Sudan. He was shown some photographs of himself, taken by Border Force officials. He agreed it was him but he could not remember exactly when they had been taken.
37. He is then asked a series of questions about information he was previously recorded as having given. He is told that internal Home Office checks have placed him at the Port of Dunkerque on the 17 and 20 February 2024. When asked “what do you say about that?” he readily admits to having been there, to having had his photograph taken at some point and to having given a false name and date of birth, He is unable remember what the date was but he said that “they” told him to say it. As I read it this was likely a reference to Muhammad and Younas, whom, the Applicant explained, had told him that if he gave his real name he could be arrested.
38. What follows merits being set out verbatim:

Assessors: When you entered the UK on 21/03/2024, you gave the name [BSB] G-Esekl with a date of birth of 14/04/2007. What do you say about that?

[BSB]: First of all, the name I gave them is [BSB] but I did not give them that name.

Assessors: During an interview with Immigration Officers when you arrived in the UK, you told them a date of birth of 14/02/2007. What do you say about that?

[BSB]: Yes nothing to say because that time when the police found us, they told us we’re in the UK so I had to give them the correct answer and DOB.

Assessors: An asylum safeguarding form was completed as you disclosed being a victim of physical harm. You were asked for any other information you felt was relevant and you said, “please note that my real date of birth is 28/05/2007”. What do you say about that?

[BSB]: I didn’t say that, don’t know where that is coming from.
39. At the hearing before me I suggested to the advocates that the first of these questions was apt to confuse. When the Applicant entered the UK on the 21/02/2024 officers recorded that his name was ‘[BSB] Debremeskel’. The Applicant now says that this is a mistake and that in fact the third part of his name (by Eritrean naming convention that of a grandfather) is Gebremiskel. I suggested without objection from the representatives that Gebremiskel was more likely to be right, given that the suffix ‘Gebre’ is a common one in Eritrea/Ethiopia: I have never heard of the suffix ‘Debre’. A further fair assumption is that this has somewhere along the line been truncated in someone’s notes to ‘G-esekl’. If the age assessor read it out to the Applicant as he has written it, ie ‘G dash E skl’ the Applicant would rightly have been confused.
40. The last question appears to be based on a document listed as being before the age assessors at their section 7 as follows:

“Asylum Safeguarding Hub Referral Form – 20.02.2024 - When asked if he had any comments, [BSB] stated: "Please note that my real date of birth is 28/5/2007 but the Home Office noted 25/08/2001 on my documents. I am not sure whether age assessment was done”.
41. The interview closes with the Applicant being asked to clarify some details about his narrative, and the assessors explaining to him that the reason he is there is that other social workers and Home Office officials believe him to be older than his stated age.
42. The assessors then record some observations about the Applicant’s appearance before concluding:

“The variations in observations of [BSB]’s physical appearance at different times suggest that his past experiences, including the long journey and traumatic events, may have influenced perceptions of his aging process. Hence physical appearance is unreliable, and we have not attribute weight to it” (sic).
43. Turning to demeanour, although towards the end of the process he became frustrated and sarcastic, the Applicant is recorded as having been generally respectful, calm and relaxed. When on occasion he was not immediately forthcoming, the assessors concluded that this was not a deliberate attempt to withhold information; rather it was “his personal style”. The assessors noted that “his responses were perceived as sincere”.
44. Under the heading ‘analysis’ the age assessment sets out some discussion of a series of factors:

(i) That the Home Office record shows that five different dates of birth have been recorded for the Applicant;

(ii) There is a lack of documentation establishing his date of birth

(iii) Physical appearance and demeanour

(iv) Credibility and inconsistencies

(v) Trauma
45. The final conclusion reached is as follows:

The assessors have concluded that [BSB] is a person aged between 19 – 22 years of age. To reach this decision assessors considered all the information provided by [BSB] to the UK immigration officers in the UK control zone in the port of Dunkerque, France, on 17/02/2024, the views of key professionals and additional sources of information made available to them.

The assessors have taken into consideration a holistic approach in assessing [BSB], and as a result he has been assigned an age of 19. This is the age that he initially provided when he arrived in the UK control zone in the port of Dunkerque. To reach this conclusion, the assessors have taken into consideration his overall physical, emotional and cognitive development, as well as his interaction and demeanour during the assessment which were considered by the assessors to be consistent with an adult. His credibility is undermined by his own account to immigration officers, and his evasiveness in his oral account during the minded to meeting on 09/12/2024 further cements this decision.

The principle of the benefit of doubt can be used in age assessment cases when assessors struggle to reach a consensus on the age of an individual. In [BSB]’s case, the benefit of doubt was not considered to be relevant given his own account to the UK immigration officers, the assessors view, and key professionals working with him who consider him to be an adult.
46. Both assessors have provided witness statements in these proceedings. Ms Nelson’s statement is dated 19 January 2026 and Mr Bunani’s the 15 January 2026. Apart from their own biographical details the statements are virtually identical. They recount the factors and evidence that they evaluated as part of their assessment, making particular mention of “potential physical indicators associated with adulthood” including their assessment that in two photographs taken of the Applicant three days apart in February 2024 at Dunkerque, there was a “noticeable increase in beard growth”. The statements go on to note:

“Physical presentations are considered as part of the holistic assessment process. Throughout the assessment, [BSB] consistently presented with features typically associated with an adult. Other professionals who have worked with him have also expressed the view that he appears to be over the age of 18”.
47. The statements also mention the multiple dates of birth that appear on the Home Office documentation. Mr Bunani notes that “[BSB] has provided five different dates of birth to various professionals, none of which align with the age he currently claims” [at his §17]. Ms Nelson’s evidence sums up their conclusions as follows:

“….Fabien and I note that the provision of multiple conflicting dates of birth introduces uncertainty regarding his identity and may indicate an intention to be regarded as a child. On this basis, Fabien and I consider the first recorded date of birth of 14 February 2005, as documented at the Port of Dunkerque, France to be the most reliable and therefore assigned [BSB] this date of birth”.

Other Evidence Relating to Age
48. I have read and had regard to the three witness statements provided by the Applicant and dated 5 June 2024, 29 April 2025 and 17 March 2026. I have also reviewed my notes of the Applicant’s oral evidence. He gave just over 3½ hours of live evidence in the present proceedings, almost all of which under cross-examination. There is nothing in particular arising from that evidence that is not already set out above, save that I note that when Lord Murray took the Applicant through the chronology of his journey from Ethiopia to the UK, the account that the Applicant gave was substantially the same the account he has given to the immigration authorities, to the Competent Authority, the Interested Party during the ‘brief enquiry’, to the age assessors, and to his solicitor when his statements were drafted. One element of that account that attracted comment in submissions was the Applicant’s explanation of how he came to be in the back of the lorry that ended up in Folkestone. He said that he had been living on the streets in Brussels, and it was very cold and raining. Some other men were climbing in the back of the lorry to sleep where it was dry, among the cardboard boxes. He said that he followed them, and fell asleep, only to be woken when they reached the UK.
49. The Applicant’s account of his life in the UK is that he has been distressed and fearful being placed with adults, in particular Muslim men, whom he associates with his experiences in Libya. When he has been able, for instance during the period that he was in supported living accommodation, he has spent time with other younger asylum seekers playing football, table tennis and PlayStation.
50. Neither party addressed me on the evidence relating to the Applicant’s social media accounts. His solicitor has, in accordance with directions from the Tribunal, reviewed his online activity. It consists of accounts on four platforms: Facebook, Tiktok, Instagram and Snapchat. All were opened in late 2024 and appear little used. The Applicant’s biographical details include a date of birth of 14 April 2007, and the fact that he is an Aries. There are a few profile pictures, some showing him clean shaven, some with a beard. His Snapchat avatar has a proper beard.
51. The only other witness was Ms Erinç Argün Kayim, who works for the Refugee Council as a Children’s Advisor in the Age Dispute Project. She has been employed in that capacity since May 2023 and prior to this worked for UNHCR in Turkey. She is a qualified lawyer. She is not an expert witness. She told me that her evidence was confined to explaining her role in supporting the Applicant, and in offering her opinion, formed over a number of hours interacting with him, and seeing him interacting with others, about how old he might be.
52. Although part of her role included ‘advocating’ for age-disputed children, Ms Kayim resisted Lord Murray’s suggestion that she was a partial witness. She explained that the resources of the Refugee Council, and her project in particular, are limited, and that she will not come to court for young people unless she believes that they are the age they claim to be. She said that a small number of initial referrals are turned down by the project because they have concerns about their age; others are ejected after receiving support if and when new evidence comes to light. She was unable to give a figure but she accepted Lord Murray’s suggestion that it was probably a small number. The way that this assessment is carried out is explained in Ms Kayim’s statement. Once an individual is referred to the Age Dispute Project she will conduct in-person visits to develop a relationship with the young person and to form her own judgment about their claimed age. She talks to the young person, asks about their lives, family background and information regarding relevant markers of age, such as education and how they know their age. She considers any documents they possess. Their appearance and presentation is also considered as part of the referral screening process. She remains mindful of the effects of culture, nutrition, life experience including any previous trauma, and the unreliability of appearance in determining a person’s exact chronological age. She then uses all of that information to consider whether the individual concerned would benefit from being supported by the Age Dispute Project.
53. Ms Kayim’s first contact with the Applicant was in April 2024, when he called her organisation, saying he had found out about it from people he played football with. He was at that time staying in a hotel accommodating adult asylum seekers, and he told Ms Kayim that this scared him; he requested support. He was aware that he had been age assessed as an adult and told Ms Kayim that he found this very upsetting, particularly since he interpreted it as being an allegation that his mother had lied to him about his date of birth. Ms Kayim then had a series of meetings with the Applicant, each lasting about 2 hours. She recounts how “sweet and sensitive” he seemed, and how he was able to give her a “very detailed account”. Ms Kayim was impressed by his deference, respectfulness and his cooperation throughout the screening interview. She found his responses to be detailed, consistent and “sincere”. She also observed that when recounting difficult, traumatic memories about Libya he continually chewed his nails, and visibly trembled. Recounting how he was forced to undertake Islamic prayers in that country, Ms Kayim observed the Applicant become very agitated as Muslim men in the hotel gathered for Friday prayer.
54. In respect of appearance Ms Kayim noted “the notorious unreliability of physical appearance” in the determination of age, but added that she found his appearance to be broadly in line with his claimed age. She noted that some aspects of appearance can be directly impacted by circumstances rather than age: in the Applicant’s case she attributed the dark circles she observed under his eyes to the fact that he was unable to sleep at the asylum hotel.
55. During her time as his Advisor Ms Kayim made several referrals for the Applicant, and arranged for him to play football and undertake art therapy. She describes him being “incredibly happy” when being supplied with some paints, and how he was keen to show her his finished work: she observed that he showed a “juvenile interest and excitement about the support he received, and he was immensely thankful”. On another occasion he was excited to show her a game he was playing on his phone. On a different occasion she was able to see how the Applicant interacted with another young asylum-seeker:

“As we were riding the train, another young person joined us. [BSB] introduced him to me as his roommate at the hotel, who was a previously looked after child who reached majority recently and was moved to asylum support accommodation because he spent less than 13 weeks in care. The two young people explained to me how they recently went outside to play football together and had so much fun. I observed [BSB] seemed more at ease, in stark contrast to how he usually behaves around adults in the hotel, and the two were able to hold a conversation seamlessly in their language, having fun. As I spoke to [BSB]’s roommate, a young person recently turned 18, he also told me that his previous roommate at the hotel was an adult which made him feel very scared and upset. He felt much more comfortable with [BSB] as a roommate, however, the hotel was not a good place for either of them because there is no one to help, guide, support and protect them. [BSB]’s close relationship with his peer further strengthened my view on him”.
56. The Applicant continues to keep in touch with Ms Kayim on an almost daily basis. She has assisted him in matters such as getting a GP appointment, and referring him for mental health treatment.
57. Having had regard to the 6 hours of screening interview, her continuing regular contact with him, the consistency of his account, his behaviour, physical appearance and presentation, Ms Kayim concludes that she believes the Appellant to have been born in 2007 as he claims.

Discussion and Findings
58. I now evaluate the evidence before me, before drawing it all together to reach a conclusion as to the Applicant’s true age.
The Age Assessment
59. I shall start with the age assessment itself, and in doing so address a preliminary point advanced about it by Lord Murray.
60. Lord Murray submitted that an age assessment undertaken by NAAB was a decision which should attract a greater degree of deference in such proceedings than a comparable age assessment carried out by social workers employed by a local authority. The basis of this submission was that the statutory underpinning of the body, its national status and the high degree of training provided to its staff meant that its decisions were likely to be of higher quality, and demonstrate a greater level of consistency than those produced by disparate local authorities. I am afraid I am unable to accept that proposition, which was not supported by any authority. As to consistency and training, a finding to the effect that Lord Murray seeks would have the effect of unfairly disparaging the work of highly trained and experienced social workers who happen not to be employed by NAAB. One of the assessors in the present case, Mr Bunani, was employed by a local authority until he wasn’t. There is nothing before me to support the proposition that he received better training, or suddenly became better at his job, the day he started working for NAAB. Assessors employed by NAAB are, as far as I can tell, bound by precisely the same legal authority and policy statements as those working for social services departments in local government, that being the guidance in Merton, associated caselaw, and the published policy guidance of the Home Office. As for the provisions establishing NAAB (ss50-51 Nationality and Borders Act 2022) I find nothing therein to support Lord Murray’s contention.
61. I am satisfied that both Ms Nelson and Mr Bunani are suitably qualified professionals. I can see from their qualifications and experience that prior to taking up work with NAAB they both worked with children in various capacities and I accept that they will have built up considerable expertise in this area. Their report is, on the whole, an impressively detailed piece of work. The process by which they arrived at their conclusions was, Ms Foot accepts, generally Merton-compliant. Although I think it fair to say that towards the end of the process the Applicant became frustrated at the number of meetings and questions, I am satisfied that the assessors considered all of this necessary to give him appropriate rests between sessions. I found the report to be in many respects balanced and thoughtful. I note for instance that the assessors took the time to conduct appropriate research into life in Ethiopia and Eritrea, and they expressly recognise that trauma can have an impact on the assessment.
62. That said, I do have significant concerns about the approach, and the conclusions that were reached. It is clear from both the age assessment itself and the witness statements of the assessors that three key factors weighed against the Applicant. I explain my concerns about each of these in turn.
Reason (i): That the Home Office record shows that five different dates of birth have been recorded for the Applicant;
63. In his witness statement Mr Bunani summarises NAAB’s concerns about the dates by saying that the Applicant “has provided five different dates of birth to various professionals, none of which align with the age he currently claims”. This is a statement that requires some unpacking.
64. The first date of birth recorded anywhere for the Applicant is that given, along with a false name, at Dunkerque on the 17 February 2024. The Applicant is recorded as having said that he was “B____ D____” and that he was born on “14 February 2005”. In her witness statement Ms Wilson explains:

“[BSB] has provided different dates of birth to various professionals, none of which correspond with the age he currently claims. These inconsistencies raise concerns regarding the credibility of his stated age. Fabien and I note that the provision of multiple conflicting dates of birth introduces uncertainty regarding his identity and may indicate an intention to be regarded as a child. On this basis, Fabien and I consider the first recorded date of birth of 14 February 2005, as documented at the Port of Dunkerque, France to be the most reliable and therefore assigned [BSB] this date of birth”.
65. The assessors therefore conclude that because this was the first date of birth recorded, this must be the most reliable. The logic of this deduction is to my mind undermined by a number of matters that the assessors fail to consider. It is accepted that the Applicant also gave a false name on that occasion. There has been no insistence on the part of the Respondent that his name is more likely to be B___ D___ than it is BSB. That a false name was given is consonant with the Applicant’s explanation about what he said that day, and indeed the 20 February 2024, namely that he was told to give false details by Muhammad and Younas. Nowhere do the assessors evaluate that evidence.
66. Instead they appear to draw some adverse inference from their view that the Applicant dissembled when asked about this matter. Both assessors refer in their witness statements to him having been “vague”, and in the assessment itself accuse the Applicant of inconsistency [at section 8]:

“You told us, the assessors that you do not remember if you had been stopped at the border between Brussels and the UK, other than the day you arrived in the UK. But we know that on 17/02/24 and 20/02/24 that you were removed from the UK control zone. What do you say about that?”
67. This question is, I regret to say, wholly misleading. I have been unable to find anywhere in the record of the conversations with the assessors where the Applicant said that he could “not remember” being stopped. In fact, as soon as he is asked about being stopped at Dunkerque he admits it: “yes I was there”. That the assessors were under a misapprehension about what the evidence actually was is confirmed by the ‘analysis’ at section 10 of the report where they comment:

“This is despite him reporting that he had never used any other date of birth and other name. This draws into question his credibility as during the minded too questions (sic) he was unable to give a coherent answer”
68. He didn’t report that at all. He admitted to having been at Dunkerque, and to having given a false name and date of birth on the instruction of others. He could not remember what those details were, but he acknowledged that he had lied. Even on the Home Office case the Applicant was, at the date of that ‘minded-to” interview, a teenaged victim of trafficking. His evidence that he was instructed by adults to lie, and that he followed those instructions, is quite unremarkable. It should at least have been considered. Instead the assessors weighed in the balance their own, and quite erroneous, view that the Applicant had sought to conceal the truth about what happened at Dunkerque.
69. What the remaining ‘five dates of birth’ might be is something of a mystery. I assume that number cannot include the “14 April 1996” recorded by the immigration officer at Folkestone on the 22 March 2024, since that was a date picked by that officer rather than the Applicant. Nor can include the “14 April 2007” recorded on the Initial Contact and Asylum Questionnaire that day, and stuck to ever since, since that is the date of birth that the Applicant claims to be genuine.
70. It might include the 28 May 2007. In cross-examination Lord Murray put it to the Applicant that he had given that date on arrival at Folkestone, which would have been the 21/22 March 2024. The Applicant denied this, and I have been unable to find any reference to the date 28 May 2007 on the documents generated by the Applicant’s arrival in the UK. On the face of it, Lord Murray’s suggestion is contradicted by Initial Contact and Asylum Questionnaire, which we know was completed that day: in this document the Applicant is clearly recorded as saying that his date of birth is 14 April 2007. The date ‘28 May 2007’ in fact appears only in the age assessment, where it is identified as having been given by the Applicant on the 20 February 2024, which would have been during the second Dunkerque stop:

“Asylum Safeguarding Hub Referral Form – 20.02.2024 - When asked if he had any comments, [BSB] stated: "Please note that my real date of birth is 28/5/2007 but the Home Office noted 25/08/2001 on my documents. I am not sure whether age assessment was done”.
71. This is odd. The Applicant was not in the UK on the 20 February 2024 so he cannot possibly have claimed asylum. It is therefore unclear why anyone would have completed an ‘asylum safeguarding hub referral form’ on that date. Furthermore there is no reference anywhere to the Home Office having written ’28/08/2001’ on the Applicant’s documents. Nor does this information tally with any of the scrawled information on the ‘IS91’ actually served on the Applicant that day. As I note above, that document shows some indecision about what the Applicant’s date of birth is. It looks as if ’14/02/2024’ has been entered by mistake; the ‘2024’ has then been struck through and the year ‘2007’ entered; then the digit ‘7’ has then been written over so that the final version reads ‘14/02/2006’. None of those dates bear any relation to the ’28/05/07’. Presumably if that date had been mentioned, it would have featured on the IS91. There is a document in the bundle dated 20 February 2024 called the ‘ vulnerable person pro-forma’, but this again gives the date of birth 14/02/06. In the absence of the actual ‘Asylum Safeguarding Form’ that the assessors refer to, I am unable to accept that the Applicant did in fact give this date.
72. The only other date which the assessors might have had in mind would be that recorded in the letter given to the Applicant at Folkestone on the 22 March 2024 [at page 426 of the bundle] which states “you have claimed your date of birth is 14/02/07”. In submissions Ms Foot suggested that the most likely cause for this date to have appeared would be error. I would agree. That is because it would have been served following – as the name suggests - the Initial Contact and Asylum Questionnaire completed on that day, where the Applicant quite clearly states that his date of birth is the 14 April 2007.
73. All of which is to say this. The NAAB age assessors clearly placed significant weight on their view that the Applicant had provided “five different dates of birth to various professionals, none of which align with the age he currently claims”. As I hope the foregoing analysis illustrates, this was, as a matter of fact, quite wrong. He provided different dates of birth on two previous occasions, both when he was encountered at the Port of Dunkerque, for the reasons that he gives: that he was then under the influence of Muhammad and Younas, the adults who had looked out for him since Libya, and that was what they told him to do. The assessors further drew adverse inference from their view that the Applicant had been evasive or untruthful when he was asked about those Dunkerque encounters. Again, as a matter of fact, I disagree that characterisation of his responses. When asked about them, he admitted it.
Reason (ii): Physical appearance and demeanour
74. In her submissions Ms Foot asked me to find a public law error in the emphasis placed by the assessors on the Applicant’s appearance. As Thornton J puts it, this factor is “notoriously unreliable”. The gulf between the parties here is two short years and there can be a significant margin of error in assessing age by physical metrics alone. That being the case, it is particularly unreliable here. One might think that it is as unlikely that a 19 year old will have a receding hairline as it is for a 17 year old.
75. Whilst I accept Ms Foot’s general proposition, the real difficulty I have had is in working out what weight the assessors in fact gave to the Applicant’s appearance.
76. At section 9 of the report, ‘physical appearance and demeanour’, the assessors expressly acknowledge that physical appearance is an unreliable indicator, and they state “we have not attribute(d) weight to it”.
77. They then go on, under point 3 of the ‘analysis’ at section 10 to take a more nuanced approach:

“In conclusion, the assessors are aware that physical appearance is not reliable alone when it comes to determining age, thus little weight can be attributed. Nevertheless, [BSB]’s physical appearance has been taken into consideration alongside other factors within this holistic assessment”
78. Although there is some tension between these statements, neither seem to me to conflict with the guidance given in numerous age assessment cases and so pithily reduced by Thornton J. Whether it is a little weight or none, either would be appropriate in a case where the subject was not “clearly an adult”. On that basis, I would be inclined to reject Ms Foot’s submission.
79. What muddies the waters considerably are the witness statements subsequently sworn by Ms Nelson and Mr Bunani. These appear to indicate that they in fact placed a fairly significant amount of weight on what they regard to be physical markers of adulthood. Of the six reasons they identify as having led to their decision, three turn on the Applicant’s alleged physical appearance. This from Mr Bunani’s statement (Ms Nelson’s is identical):

“-Photographs of [BSB] taken by UK immigration officials at the port of Dunkerque in France, show visible red spots and dark marks consistent with recent shaving, a noticeable Adam’s apple, and a fine moustache. [BSB]’s beard growth appeared to increase noticeably over a three‑day period between images taken at the UK control zone in Dunkerque on 17/02/2024 and 20/02/2024. Assessors believe that these may be physical indicators associated with adulthood.

-Assessors noted discrepancies between [BSB]'s physical appearance:
During the assessment, which commenced on 06/11/20024, around seven months after he arrived in the UK, [BSB] reported shaving every 3–4 weeks. Assessors noted that there was no observable hair growth during the assessment period, and he presented clean‑shaven at each session. Assessors believe that this may suggest that he may not have been fully forthcoming about his shaving habits, which may reflect an attempt to appear younger.

-Photographs of [BSB] taken at the port of Dunkerke are consistent with the description provided by Home Office officials upon his arrival in the UK. Officials recorded that “[BSB] has deep lines on his forehead that are becoming more pronounced. He has a protruding Adam’s apple, wrinkles under his eyes, and a five o’clock shadow.” Based on their observations, they concluded that his physical appearance and demeanour strongly suggested he was significantly over the age of 18”.
80. Whilst I recognise that social workers who conduct these assessments have a level of experience that I do not, these remarks are troublingly at odds with the evidence I have been shown. The two photographs produced three days apart at Dunkerque do not appear to me to be any different at all, save for the fact the Applicant is wearing a different coloured top. Even allowing for the caution with which we should approach two-dimensional photographs (for which see Thornton J’s point (9) above) I am simply unable to see the noticeable increase in beard growth that is mentioned. Nor, having observed the Applicant over day 1 of the hearing was I able to see any eye wrinkles or “deep lines in his forehead”. What I was able to see was the healthy beard that the Applicant quite proudly sported. He explained to the assessors that he been regularly shaving since Libya, in an effort to make his facial hair thicker, because he likes it. On the evidence before me, that effort paid off. I note that the Applicant’s pride in his beard is also evident from the ‘avatar’, connected with the Tiktok account that he opened in the middle of the age assessment process. If the Applicant created that, and other, social media accounts in late 2024 in order to support his claim (the date of birth given on each account is 14 April 2007) he was certainly not shying away from his beard growth.
81. Overall I find the age assessors’ position on what weight they attached to physical appearance to be inconsistent; where it appears that it was weighed against him, it is contrary to the facts.
82. In respect of demeanour, a different point emerges. The assessors very fairly describe the Applicant as being polite, cooperative and “sincere” in his responses. What is striking is that he does not appear to have been given any credit for that. This brings me to the final point weighing against his claimed age during the assessment.
Reason (iii) Credibility and inconsistencies
83. The age assessment is a very detailed piece of work, and the assessors subject the Applicant’s account to close scrutiny. Part of their role is to assess the Applicant’s general credibility as a witness, and so I agree that this was an important part of their evaluation of him. I do have my reservations about some of the points made. I do not think, for instance, that anything turns on the Applicant having said that he knew “nothing” of his father on one day, and then on another divulging that his mother had told him that his father had been held in a military camp in Eritrea. These scant facts are, to a son who has grown up without a father, as good as nothing. I am not however particularly concerned about this difference of opinion between myself and the assessors. What does give me cause for concern is this: that nowhere in the ‘analysis’ section do the assessors appear to give the Applicant any credit at all.
84. There is no recognition that the Applicant had, by then, been recognised as a victim of trafficking, in a conclusive grounds decision applying the civil standard of ‘a balance of probabilities’. This is a striking omission given that most of the ‘inconsistencies’ identified relate to the period where he was being held in Libya.
85. More significant still is the failure of the age assessors to set the “contradictions” they identify in the context of the Applicant’s evidence overall. As far as I can see no regard at all is had for the fact that he had, since his arrival in the UK, presented a chronological narrative that was broadly consistent with his claimed age. On the day after he arrived in the UK the Applicant underwent a brief interview called the ‘Initial Contact and Asylum Registration Questionnaire”. At [2.6] he is asked whether he attended school. He says that he went up until grade 8, when he was 13, leaving in (Gregorian calendar year) 2021. That is consistent with his evidence that he started aged 5 in 2012. Then at [3.4] he is asked to outline his journey to the UK. He states that he left Eritrea in 2010. He left Ethiopia in August 2022 for Sudan, and then onto Libya where he was kept in a ‘warehouse’ for 2 months, ultimately staying in that country for a total of 1 year 6 months. He then went to Italy in December 2023, being fingerprinted on arrival, then onto France, then Belgium. That account of the Applicant’s life and journey – given within hours of getting out of the back of a lorry - is internally consistent with his claimed date of birth. If he left school in 2021 aged 13, then that would mean he was born in 2007. If he left Ethiopia aged 15 and spent just short of two years getting to the UK, that would mean he was around 17 on arrival. This account, it is worth repeating, has remained substantially the same over multiple re-tellings. He gave the same chronology, bar a few days here and there, to the Home Office in his asylum claim; to the Competent Authority in his trafficking investigation; to the age assessors over four separate days of interview, and to his solicitors when drafting his detailed witness statements. As focused as they are on peripheral details, nowhere do the assessors stand back and look at that larger picture. It is of course possible that the Applicant has both a good memory and maths skills, which he has employed to consistently advance a false account. It is however also true that where people seek to deceive about their age it is very often in the chronology they present that the deception unravels: it certainly has not done so here. Nowhere do the age assessors consider any of that. I should add for the sake of completeness, although obviously this was not a matter that the age assessors could have taken into account, the Applicant’s chronological narrative remained substantially consistent notwithstanding some 3½ hours of cross-examination in these proceedings.
86. I conclude that the age assessors were obviously well trained and that they approached their task conscientiously. They had regard to important factors such as trauma, and the obvious issue that the Applicant is without any documentation to verify a claimed age that has been disputed since his arrival in this country. There are however some significant shortcomings in the age assessment’s conclusions. I find that the assessors were under a misapprehension as to what the Applicant had said and when, including during the age assessment itself. These errors of fact are fundamental to their analysis. The assessors are further inconsistent and unclear about what weight they attached to the Applicant’s appearance, and the points that they do weigh against him are at odds with my own observation. They focused unnecessarily on minor inconsistencies in the narrative without standing back and setting those inconsistencies in the context of the Applicant’s claim overall. I am fortified in my analysis that the ‘inconsistencies’ identified are at best minor or peripheral by the fact that the Home Office subsequently looked past them to grant the Applicant asylum within four days of him having been interviewed. All of this means I am able to attach only limited weight to the conclusions reached in the age assessment.
Ms Kayim
87. In respect of Ms Kayim I have no reason to believe that the opinion she offers is anything other than sincerely held. I believe her when she says that she will not waste the scant resources of her project on those she thinks are actually adults. I believe her when she says that in her experience the Applicant has been “sincere” in his evidence and “juvenile” in some aspects of his behaviour. I believe her account of observing him interacting with another young person with whom he plays football, and seeing the “fun” they had together. Her assessment of him being “sweet and sensitive”, “respectful” and “deferential” accords with the views expressed by the age assessors. Lord Murray is however correct to submit that Ms Kayim is not an expert, and the reality is that all of her observations might be just as true of a 19 year old as they are to a 17 year old. I am therefore able to attach only limited weight to her opinion.
The Applicant
88. I do not believe everything that the Applicant says. I do not believe that he accidentally fell asleep in the back of a lorry in Brussels and to his amazement woke up in the UK. That is quite obviously untrue, since by his own admission he, and Muhammad and Younas, made multiple attempts to enter the UK during the same period. It is inherently unlikely that he could fall so deeply asleep that he would not be aware of the lorry moving, or that the lorry would just so happen to be heading to the very place the Applicant had spent weeks trying to get to. I assume that the Applicant has stuck to this claim because it is another one of those things he was told to say. He lied about this in response to Lord Murray’s questions, and indeed directly in response to questions from me.
89. I am further satisfied that the Applicant has lied on at least two occasions to the Home Office about his age. That is because he has given three dates of birth, and only one can be true.
90. In this specialist Tribunal we understand very well that witnesses are able to lie about some things, whilst other evidence is perfectly genuine. People do so for all sorts of reasons. They may fabricate an account to gain an immigration advantage; they might exaggerate an already true account; they might invent a detail because they are unable to remember and are fearful of being disbelieved. Very often we find that the untruths in a story relate to the journey to the UK. Migrants are advised, or pressured, by people smugglers into concealing methods of entry and travel, and to stick to certain stories. Here we have a young man who has been believed about why he needs international protection, and why he should be recognised as a victim of trafficking; I doubt that either experienced Home Office officials or the Competent Authority believed the bit about falling asleep in a lorry. The untruths he has told about his journey, and the false details he gave at Folkestone, must be seen in that context. I find that he has lied, and that none of that goes to his credit, but it is not of very much assistance to me in determining his true age.
91. What has been helpful is looking at the details given about his life with his mother in Ethiopia, his account of his journey and his life since he arrived in the UK. I will not rehearse again what I have set out above, but in summary it is a fairly complex account, which a) is internally consistent with his claimed age and b) has remained substantially the same over multiple retellings and sustained cross-examination. This is a matter that I give substantial weight to.
92. The final point to be made about the Applicant is the very positive impression he has made on the people who have assessed him during these proceedings. The age assessors and Ms Kayim all speak about him in warm terms – he is sweet, sensitive, polite, respectful, deferential and co-operative. Crucially, all saw him as being “sincere”. The assessors spent many hours over 5 days interviewing him. Ms Kayim did the same over a total of 6 hours, and has maintained frequent, if not daily, contact with him throughout the process. They have all had a good opportunity to make that assessment of the Applicant’s demeanour, and apart from the matters I refer to above, it is one that I share, having had the opportunity to hear from him myself.

Conclusions
93. Drawing all of this together I find as follows.
94. The Applicant has no documentary evidence to establish his age. As the age assessors very fairly point out, this is not however inconsistent with him having been a refugee in Ethiopia as he describes.
95. The conception of this age dispute occurred at Folkestone back in 2024. The officers who processed the Applicant thought he was clearly an adult, and their view carried over into Hillingdon’s now withdrawn ‘brief enquiry’. That view was based on the Applicant’s appearance. Although the Respondent has resiled from that overall assessment, concerns about the Applicant’s appearance have remained.
96. I have given careful consideration to the evidence about the Applicant’s appearance. I do not agree that he has a receding hairline, or deep lines in his face. I could not say whether the Adam’s apple of someone born in 2007 is likely to be significantly less pronounced than someone born in 2005. I do accept that the Applicant has a small neat beard, and one that he sports quite proudly. He has used it as his Snapchat avatar, and came to court with it clearly groomed. He told me he likes his beard and that is quite plainly the case. The rate of growth of facial hair in Eritrean males was not something about which I received specialist expert evidence. I am asked to find that applying common sense, it is a marker of adulthood. I am simply unable to do that, because I know from my own experience – of my own children and their friends, of the many law students that I work with – that children mature at wildly different rates and it is entirely possible for boys as young as 15 to have fully established facial hair. Given the very small margin of the dispute between the parties I was in the end unable to derive very much assistance from the Applicant’s appearance.
97. As it developed, the next point weighing against the Applicant’s claimed age was the notion that he had given multiple difference dates of birth. As I have held above, after a careful examination of the evidence, the position is this. He gave two different dates of birth when stopped at the Port of Dunkerque trying to gain entry to the UK. He says that he did this because he was instructed to do so by Muhammad and Younas. There is nothing remarkable in that evidence, and it is consonant with my observations above about the deception that migrants and their smugglers employ in getting people into, and around, Europe. The undisputed evidence is that the Applicant was at that time a teenager who had been through a horrific series of events. His mother had died, he had been subject to forced labour, torture and ill treatment in the Libyan desert, had lived hand-to-mouth in Tripoli, and he had nearly died crossing the Mediterranean. He had come under the ‘care’ of Muhammad and Younas and it was them, he says, who advised him to conceal his true identity and date of birth. I accept, on balance, that this is probably true.
98. Since the Applicant arrived in the UK, he has consistently maintained that his date of birth is 14 April 2007. He has given detailed evidence about how he knows this. It’s the same way as most people come to know their birthdays – he was told by his mum. They used to celebrate it every year, with fruits and sweets, which they would invite the other children living in the compound to share. The biographical details repeatedly given by the Applicant – when he moved to and from Ethiopia, when he started attending school and when he left – are all consistent with his claimed age. The chronology of his journey from Addis Ababa to Folkestone, related on multiple occasion, is consistently that he spent just short of 2 years travelling. Again, that is consistent with him being almost 17 years old on arrival.
99. Although the Respondent rejected the Applicant’s age, he has in all other material respects been found to be a witness of truth about his life and what happened to him in Ethiopia and Libya. Those who have spent more time with him than I report to finding him “sincere”.
100. Drawing all of that together, and bearing in mind that in marginal cases such as this one the benefit of the doubt must always lie with the young person, I conclude on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant is telling the truth about his date of birth.

Decision
101. The Applicant’s date of birth is declared to be 14 April 2007 and the claim therefore succeeds. I quash the decision of the Respondent to find that the Applicant’s date of birth is 14 February 2005.

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce,
18 June 2026