JR-2025-LON-004148
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
JR-2025-LON-004148
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
JLG
Applicant
and
Derby City Council
Respondent
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Rastogi sitting at Field House, Bream’s Buildings, London EC4A 1WR at a fact-finding hearing on 16 June 2026 to determine the applicant’s age and date of birth
UPON consideration of the documents lodged by the parties and having heard from Counsel for the Applicant and Counsel for the Respondent
AND UPON the Tribunal handing down judgment on 2 September 2026 in the absence of the parties
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
1. The Applicant was born on 21 June 2003.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons given in the judgment.
2. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s reasonable costs, to be the subject of a detailed assessment if not agreed and subject to a determination of his ability to pay such costs pursuant to s26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
3. There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.
4. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is refused, no application for such permission having been made, on the basis that there is no arguable material error of law in the judgment.
Signed: SJ Rastogi
Upper Tribunal Judge Rastogi
Dated: 2 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): 02/09/2026
Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:
Case No: JR-2025-LON-004148
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
2 September 2026
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RASTOGI
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
JLG
Applicant
- and -
DERBY CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms S. Ferrin
(instructed by Luke and Bridger Law), for the applicant
Mr M. Millington
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the respondent
Hearing date: 16 June 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge Rastogi:
1. By these judicial review proceedings the applicant challenges the respondent’s assessment of his age.
2. The applicant is a national of Ethiopia. He claims to have been born on 21 June 2008 which made him 17 years old upon arrival into the UK when he was assessed as an adult and assigned the date of birth 21 June 2003 by officials from the Home Office. That was confirmed by the respondent’s age assessors following a Brief Enquiry of his age on 15 August 2025 (the decision under challenge). They concluded he was clearly an adult on the basis of his physical appearance and demeanour. The date of birth assigned to him means he would have been 22 upon arrival. Although he was referred into the National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”), on 29 July 2025 a negative reasonable grounds decision was made on the basis of “insufficient information to meet the standard of proof required”. He was granted asylum on 5 February 2026.
3. Following initial pre-action correspondence, these proceedings were issued at the High Court on 1 October 2025. The applicant challenges the assessment of his age on the single ground that the respondent’s assessment of the applicant’s age was wrong. The ground was founded upon a number of specific criticisms of the decision and the process resulting in the decision.
4. Permission was granted but interim relief was refused meaning that the applicant remained in adult accommodation and was not afforded the benefit of services normally offered to looked after children. The proceedings were transferred to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing with the sole purpose of determining the applicant’s age and date of birth. That is dispositive of the proceedings. Case Management directions about evidence and disclosure were made.
5. On 4 June 2026 the applicant applied for permission to admit late evidence, namely a second witness statement from the applicant, and the report of Dr H. Rauf dated 31 March 2026. That was to be considered de bene esse. In the event, the respondent did not oppose the application and I admit the evidence.
6. Only the applicant gave evidence before me with the assistance of an Oromo speaking interpreter. For the purposes of the hearing, I treated the applicant as a vulnerable witness in accordance with "Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance" and based on [9.14]-[9.17] of Dr Rauf’s report which recommended certain adjustments. The applicant was given various breaks throughout the hearing. I indicated at the hearing that I would reserve my position on the extent to which, if at all, the applicant’s mental health and vulnerability are relevant to the assessment of the applicant’s evidence.
7. I had the benefit of a hearing bundle which was updated with the amended expert report and ran to 901 pages (“HB”). I was also provided with an Authorities Bundle (“AB”). I heard submissions on behalf of both parties and had the benefit of both advocates’ skeleton arguments for which I am grateful. At the end of the hearing, I reserved my decision.
Legal Framework
8. The relevant legal framework in age assessments is well known and uncontentious. Counsel both helpfully set out the relevant legal framework in their respective skeleton arguments, to which I have had regard. There were no real areas of dispute between them about it. As such, I set out the core principles in summary only.
9. The Upper Tribunal is required to determine as an objective fact the age of the applicant and is not bound to choose between one or other of the parties’ positions when doing so (MC v Lewisham CC [2011] 1 FLR 728).
10. Neither party is required to prove the precedent fact. The Tribunal is to ask whether the precedent fact (of whether or not the applicant is a child at the material time) exists on the balance of probabilities, and the approach is an inquisitorial one. A sympathetic assessment of the evidence is appropriate (R(CJ) Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590; R(AI) v West Berkshire Council [2025] EWCA Civ 136 ). Nevertheless, as this is still a claim for judicial review, the applicant has to establish there is some material upon which the Tribunal could reach a conclusion contrary to that found by the respondent; the better the quality of the initial decision-making, the less likely it is the Court will come to a different decision (A v Croydon LBC and M v Lambeth LBC [2009] UKSC 8).
11. The guidelines for lawful assessments of age are set out in B v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin) and R (AS) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWHC 2091 (Admin) where certain minimum standards were listed at [19]; although as in R (on the application of HAM) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin) there may be occasions on which the requirements for fairness may be met without a full Merton-compliant assessment and be based on evidence of appearance and demeanour alone (although these are likely to be rare). The older a person looks on their appearance, the more weight can attach to their appearance (on this, see further below).
12. Issues of vulnerability and trauma must be taken into account insofar as relevant (Association of Directors of Children’s Services Age Assessment Guidance, October 2015).
13. Almost all evidence of physical characteristics is likely to be of limited value given the lack of clear relationship between chronological age and most measurable aspects of physical maturity. Observations on demeanour are particularly unreliable in the context of brief, one-time encounters with individuals. A more useful assessment of such matters emanates from those with experience of the individual over a considerable period of time (R (AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council IAAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 (IAC)).
14. It is permissible to take into account the applicant’s general credibility, but care should be taken to ensure that particular importance is afforded to the credibility of the person’s evidence in relation to age (MVN v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC 1942 (Admin)).
15. The fact that an individual has been untruthful about one aspect of their claim does not mean that the same necessarily applies to their evidence about their age (R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin)).
16. All relevant evidence must be considered in the round.
17. The advantages of a person persuading the authorities they are under 18 are well-known (R (A) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] EWHC 939 (Admin)).
18. The benefit of the doubt is to be afforded to the applicant only where, having considered the evidence, the Tribunal remains in doubt as to whether the applicant is over 18 or not, in which case it should conclude that the applicant is under 18 (R (AS) v Kent County Council (age assessment; dental evidence) [2017] UKUT 00446 (IAC)).
The Submissions
19. Mr Millington submitted that, in the absence of documentary or other independent evidence of the applicant’s age, the starting point should be the applicant’s credibility which he submitted was damaged because of the numerous inconsistencies throughout his evidence. He submitted that should be contrasted with the evidence of the experienced professional social workers who have assessed the applicant to be an adult and which is corroborated by the only other evidence of the applicant’s age, namely the assessment by the Home Office officials. He submitted that weight can properly attach to the Brief Enquiry as confirmed in the relevant authorities, and in light of the assessors’ experience and the absence of other evidence about the applicant’s age.
20. Ms Ferrin submitted that the applicant had, in fact, provided a coherent and truthful account and he has explained credibly the inconsistencies. Some of those can be more accurately characterised as an evolution of his account. On the key issues he has remained consistent, such as his age. On others his account accords with what is known about the country situation in Ethiopia, such as identification documentation being issued once a person is 18 years of age, that most people do not have a birth certificate and that one is not required to start school (ST (Ethnic Eritrea – nationality – return) Ethiopia CG [2011] UKUT 00252 (IAC) para. 106 and para. 107 of Appendix A apply). Whilst it is accepted that age can be lawfully assessed solely on the basis of physical appearance and demeanour, Ms Ferrin submitted that should not be the case here as the difference between the claimed and disputed age (17 v 22) is not that significant, particularly because at 17 the applicant would have gone through puberty and it cannot be reliably said that he looks 22 rather than 17. In that situation, the Brief Enquiry is not Merton-compliant, particularly when the applicant’s ethnicity is taken into account, the absence of an appropriate adult and lack of acknowledgement of his trauma and mental health. She submitted these dangers are not counteracted by the assessors’ expertise.
Discussion of the Evidence
21. For convenience, I have set out my evaluation of the evidence in sections. The order in which I do so does not denote the weight to attach to each section. When reaching my conclusions, I have considered all the evidence in the round and in light of the detailed submissions I heard.
The Psychiatric Evidence – 31 March 2026
22. There was no dispute over Dr Rauf’s expertise or the content of her report. She is a consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist. Dr Rauf assessed the applicant on 24 March 2026 over Zoom with the assistance of an Oromo interpreter. There was an error at [7.8] of the report which Dr Rauf corrected by way of a letter dated 15 June 2026. At first she had said that the applicant was 13 years old when he went to prison but corrected this to 15 years old. Her clinical opinion was that the applicant displayed psychological symptoms of trauma and was prescribed antidepressant medication which was effective “with his trauma and low mood symptoms” [9.1]. He no longer takes it because it was stopped five months earlier [7.3]. His symptoms seem to be “much better” than they were when he arrived in August 2025 [9.10]. He currently suffers from “mild to moderate depression and some symptoms of PTSD” which are consistent with someone who has endured physical/psychological and emotional trauma and his claimed life experiences (the disappearance of his father; his imprisonment; ill-treatment in Libya; journey to the UK) [9.3] and that there is “no alternative explanation of his current mental health symptoms” [9.4]. Dr Rauf said the applicant “might benefit” from one-to-one therapy for up to 6 months, to be reviewed. Dr Rauf opined that it is “difficult” to say that the applicant is feigning his symptoms but “he has consistently given the same account for his journey, so he appears to be credible” and she noted no inconsistent or exaggerated psychiatric symptoms”.
23. I have had regard to this report when evaluating the applicant’s evidence. In doing so, I have noted that the applicant is no longer taking anti-depressant medication and his symptoms are much better than they were although he still has some. There is no evidence that the applicant has received the therapeutic counselling he may need.
24. Applying the Joint Presidential Guidance Note, I note the effect his symptoms and past trauma might have on the applicant’s ability to provide a coherent account of his history. I also note that, whilst Dr Rauf recommended some adjustments for the hearing, she did not expressly comment in her report about the applicant’s ability to give a coherent account. For example, she did not say that his memory might be impacted by his past trauma and/or his mental health. She gave advice about reasonable adjustments which was followed so as to enable the applicant to give his best evidence. In the circumstances, whilst I of course keep the Presidential Guidance in mind, I note the lack of specific medical evidence either directly about the applicant’s age, or about any known or recognised memory or cognitive difficulties.
The respondent’s Brief Enquiry into the applicant’s age (“the Brief Enquiry”)
25. It is not in dispute that the respondent carried out a Brief Enquiry into the applicant’s age rather than a detailed age assessment. Neither is it in dispute that, in some circumstances, such a course of action is permissible without offending the Merton principles. Indeed such a course was contemplated at [27] and [38] of Merton.
26. In Merton, it was held that there may be cases where it is “very obvious” that a person is under or over 18 in which case there is no need for a prolonged enquiry [27]. At [28] reference is made to “clear cases”. In R(AB) v Kent County Council [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin), the court declined to define a margin whereby assessments based on physical attributes and demeanour alone are appropriate, deciding instead that it should depend on the facts of the case. In R (HAM), Swift J reiterated that what matters is that there has been a reasonable investigation and fair process on the facts of the case.
27. On that issue, I have considered the process undertaken here. I accept that the assessing social workers are experienced. In particular, it is expressly noted that one of them has 19 years of working with children in care. They are both accepted as being trained age assessors. Accordingly, their opinion is on the face of it worthy of weight. An interpreter was used. I accept there is no evidence that an appropriate adult was present. That is not, of itself, determinative of the Enquiry being unfair, because each case is to be taken on the particular circumstance of the case. The question is whether the applicant was able to properly contribute and respond to matters going to his credibility (HAM).
28. The Brief Enquiry is set out in a template form headed “Outcome of Brief Enquiry of Age” which provides for a “minded to” section and space allowed for the applicant’s response to the assessors’ concerns. Immediately thereafter is a section for the assessors’ final conclusions. It appears this whole process is contemplated to take place in the same sitting and arises because the assessors already take the view that it is ‘very obvious’ that a person is over 18.
29. In the applicant’s case, the assessors noted the applicant had no documentary evidence to support his claimed date of birth. They noted the assessment of the Home Office Officials who originally assigned him the date of birth 21 June 2003. Under the heading “Minded to decision” the assessors note that they do not accept his claimed date of birth and consider him to be an adult. A narrative response set out what the assessors told the applicant. In summary, they explained he had been assessed by 2 qualified social workers with a combined experience exceeding 19 years of working with children from various backgrounds and cultures. Then they said:
“We feel that in physical appearance and demeanour you present as an adult with significant facial stubble, receding hairline, and forehead lines. You presented as quite mature despite a number of delays regarding getting an interpreter.”
30. In response, the applicant continued to dispute the assigned age. As to the comments about his face, he said :
I have told you I have been through difficult situations since 2023. I was also in prison. There was a lot of problems and abuse in prison. Because of beard my family a lot of them have beard like this.”
31. Returning to the template, the assessors noted that after considering the applicant’s response they remained of the view that he was an adult (in physical appearance and demeanour). The other options available to the assessors would have been to assess him as a child or to doubt his claimed date of birth and arrange a full Merton-compliant age assessment.
32. To supplement the Brief Enquiry, the respondent also relied on the assessors’ handwritten notes. Both assessors appear to have taken notes and two copies of each of their notes appear in the bundle. In the main they are consistent, but the notes which start at [HB804] are slightly more detailed than those which appear from [HB833] and where there are differences I prefer the more detailed version for that reason. They both reveal, of relevance, that the interview could not go ahead at first as no interpreter was available and, that two minutes in, there were “technical issues” which lasted for 8 minutes. One says the interview re-started at ‘13.16’ hours [HB833] and the other said it then stopped at 13.18 and re-started at 13.26. They both said it ended at 14.02. In other words a total substantive time of about 36-40 minutes. When enquiring how the applicant was feeling, he responded that he had not eaten because he was a bit “stress about things”. Therein the social workers asked how the applicant knew his date of birth to which he said “my mother told me and based on that they put me in school and based on that they do everything they need to do”. Later he added that he was seven years old when they put him in school and that he left when he was “12 years and some months … June 2020”. He explained his mother knew the date and would tell him on that date that it was his birthday. He said he had no identification documents yet “because of his age” and then explained then he would have to be 18 years old to get documents in Ethiopia.
33. I have some reservations about the ‘minded to’ process in a situation where the assessors’ view that it is ‘very obvious’ they are over 18 (on the basis that I do not know what a person may say to make them change their mind). I accept it is a requirement, and it appears to have been followed here. I note the applicant was able to respond to the concerns raised and his answer addressed those concerns.
34. I find it difficult to understand why the more detailed account the applicant gave to the assessors, as evidenced by their notes was either not recorded on the Brief Enquiry form or otherwise evaluated. I assume this is because the assessors decided it was ‘very obvious’ he was over 18 so decided (as the Brief Enquiry template says) that a prolonged enquiry is not required [HB10].
35. However, that means it was solely the applicant’s appearance, demeanour and lack of documentation which provided the reasoning for the assessors reaching the decision they did. The assessors did not expressly refer to the Home Office age assessment, save to note its finding that he was assessed as being 22.
36. I pause here to note that I do not find there to be any real concern that the applicant was not able to express himself at the Brief Enquiry. He appeared to answer their questions cogently and appropriately. The absence of an appropriate adult does not appear to have had an obvious impact on the fairness of the process.
37. As to the applicant’s presentation, photos were taken during the Brief Enquiry – a full length one at [HB831] and a close up at [HB832]. I cannot see signs of stubble to corroborate what the assessors described in the Brief Enquiry but I am not sure that matters given the applicant accepts he had started shaving by the time of his arrival into the UK. The photo does not show obvious stubble though so it rather undermines what the assessors have described as “significant stubble” which reduces the weight to attach to that part of their reasoning. The photo reveals what may be described as a ‘receding’ hairline, but whether it is in fact receding or merely the applicant’s natural hairline is not evidenced before me. I do not attach any real weight to that part of the description given by the assessors as evidence of his age. I find it a neutral factor. The photo does show some blemishes and marks on the applicant’s face and some faint lines on his forehead which corroborate what the assessors said plus clearer lines on his cheeks (side of the nose and downwards) and mouth. Based on the photo alone I am not in a position to say that it is ‘very clear’ the applicant was over 18 at the time it was taken. If that represented how the applicant presented to the assessors, I do not find it to offer any significant support for their overall conclusion that the applicant was very clearly an adult, particularly in light of the fact that physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis to assess age.
38. As to the assessors’ comments about the applicant’s demeanour, they said he appeared “quite mature” in light of the delays and the interpreter problems but they did not further explain what they meant. The only detail about the problems are contained in the handwritten notes (see [32] above) but they are limited. I treat this as meaning that the applicant appeared more mature than a child would have done at the assessment. I find this to fit in with their overall conclusion that he was “very clearly” an adult but it is very light on detail and explanation.
39. I have regard to what the Upper Tribunal said at [19] of AM, namely:
“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.”
40. There is no suggestion the assessors tried to seek the views of anyone who may have known the applicant. That is because they decided he was very clearly an adult and they did not need to progress to a more prolonged enquiry.
41. In all the circumstances, whilst I do not doubt that the assessors believed the applicant presented as ‘very clearly’ an adult for the reasons they have provided, and that they are qualified to carry out such assessments, I do not find their reasoning to satisfy me that their Brief Enquiry should attract anything more than limited weight on the issue of the applicant’s age.
The Home Office Initial Age Decision [HB617]
42. This was disclosed as part of the respondent’s disclosure and is relied on by the respondent as corroborating the Brief Enquiry. I return to the issue of corroboration below.
43. The assessment took place on 19 July 2025. On that occasion, a social worker was present as was an interpreter (by phone).
44. The assessment was conducted by two Home Office officials who asked various questions about the applicant’s health, journey to the UK, life in Ethiopia and his appearance. When it was put to the applicant that he appeared to be older than he claimed he said “I think it is because of being in prison and the journey has worn me down but my age is correct”.
45. There is no evidence about the expertise of the officers who carried out the assessment save that I note one of the two officers was described as a “higher” Border Force Officer (“BFHO”). As to the social worker who was present, I have not been directed to any evidence about whether they are trained in age assessment, but I note that the “Assessing Officer’s Report” dated 19 July 2025 at [HB611] records the notes of the BFHO as follows:
“Social worker (redacted) was present during the interview and is in agreement with the assessment. The opinion of the social worker has been given significant weight due to their experience in this field”.
46. In their assessment, the Home Office officials set out a description of the applicant’s appearance [HB619-620], demeanour [HB620] and behaviour; together with a summary of what the applicant had said about his life in Ethiopia and his journey to the UK [HB620-621]. Their conclusion was as follows:
“JLG’s physical appearance and demeanour strongly suggest that he is
significantly over the age of 18 years old. I have taken into consideration
environmental and journey details and my assessment is based on all the
information and observations I have made during the interview.
It is a fact that age assessments are inherently uncertain however it is my recommendation that JLG is processed as an adult with an age range of 22 – 24 years.
A Border Force Officer and a Higher Border Force Officer have assessed
you as an adult aged 22 years, they have also provided you with a new date of birth (21.06.2003) to reflect their decision.”
47. As to presentation, I have regard to the fact that the assessment took place upon the applicant’s arrival into the UK when he had not long got off a boat and following a lengthy journey since his departure from Ethiopia resulting in a period of time in the Calais Jungle shortly before boarding the boat (this was not expressly challenged by the respondent). I note the Home Office officials were also minded of this fact because they referred to and said they had considered whether that would explain the applicant’s mature appearance. At [HB620] they noted the applicant’s view that his older appearance is because of “the life I have led”. However, they concluded this did not explain the applicant’s appearance as older than his claimed age although they did not elaborate any further.
48. The respondent has not challenged the applicant’s account of his journey. I am prepared to accept that it would have been a difficult journey. I accept on arrival into the UK, this may have some impact on his appearance in that he may appear, for example, dishevelled, tired or stressed. I note that there is a small passport style photo of the applicant appended to the Bail notice issued to him on 20 July 2025 (the day after the Home Office initial age inquiry). It is a black and white photo, and is very dark. But at [HB827] there is a colour copy which is named in the index as the Home Office photo of the applicant. From there I can see obvious facial lines on the applicant’s forehead, under his cheek area and around his mouth. I find these to be neutral factors given the inherent unreliability of physical characteristics as evidence of age. I find this to be even more so given that, at the time he was being observed, the applicant had only just arrived in the UK following a long journey from Ethiopia and a small boat crossing from France.
49. As for demeanour, I note the officers considered the applicant to be calm, co-operative, did not present with any child-like behaviours nor any anxiety. In particular the officer said “his ability to emotionally regulate despite saying he had been traumatised was a mature response to the process” [HB620]. That assessment ties in with the respondent’s assessors’ views of the applicant’s maturity. However, neither the Home Office officers nor the assessors had the advantage of viewing the applicant over a prolonged period so there is very little assistance to be gained from short observations of demeanour in this type of setting (see [39] above).
50. Given the lack of detail in the evidence about the expertise of the officers and social workers who carried out this assessment, I find there is significant limit to the weight I can attach to it. However, I note there are certain features which ensured fairness, such as the presence of the social worker and the interpreter and at least some consideration about the impact of trauma. The applicant was given an opportunity to comment on the Home Office officials’ observations about his demeanour and to answer questions about his age. However, like the respondent’s assessors, and notwithstanding that they collected more information from the applicant, there was no attempt to evaluate the account the applicant gave of his age or journey to the UK. Likewise, their opinion was formed entirely from the lack of documentary evidence of age and the applicant’s physical appearance and demeanour which they felt “very strongly suggest he is significantly over the age of 18” [HB612].
51. For all the reasons I have given, these aspects are notoriously unreliable indicators of age. Nevertheless, as I said in relation to the respondent’s assessors, I do not doubt this was the genuine view of the Home Office officials. I find their assessment to offer some corroboration of the Brief Enquiry in that all four of the officials assessing the applicant decided he was obviously or very clearly an adult.
The Social Media Evidence
52. The applicant’s solicitor, Mr Bridger, carried out the social media enquiries and provided two statements dated 18 December 2025 and 23 January 2026 detailing the results. In summary, there is a Facebook account in the applicant’s name and which shows the date of birth as 3 October 2000. The applicant instructed Mr Bridger that arose because he told his friend that he was born in 2000 using the Ethiopian calendar and the day and month were chosen randomly. As will be seen at [77] below, the applicant denied this in his oral evidence.
53. The material from the download was in Chinese. The initial log is dated 6 June 2023 in Taiwan. There was no further activity until 17 September 2025. The Facebook data shows the applicant’s gender as female. It reveals password changes on various dates in 2025 before the applicant arrived in the UK and in different locations across the world as does the activity, even during periods when the applicant was in the UK. The other locations are mainly in the US.
54. Mr Bridger also refers to the applicant’s Snapchat account which shows his date of birth as 21 June 2008 (the claimed date of birth). There is no date of birth associated with the TikTok account in his name. His Whatsapp account does not reveal any messages relevant to the issue of age.
55. The position in relation to the Facebook account is confusing and I do not find it to assist me in determining the applicant’s age either way (although I return to the issue when assessing the applicant’s credibility).
56. Neither am I greatly assisted by the Snapchat, WhatsApp or TikTok accounts. I note there is nothing to which I have been directed arising from these accounts which undermine the applicant’s claim about his age. Whilst the Snapchat account contains the claimed date of birth, it would be surprising if an account which the applicant started after arrival into the UK gave an age which was other than his claimed one. Accordingly, whilst I note that it affords some corroboration, I find it to be of marginal assistance.
The applicant’s evidence about his age
57. When evaluating the applicant’s evidence, I have kept in mind that he may be a minor and he has been through trauma. Accordingly, he was treated as a vulnerable person at the hearing and given reasonable adjustments. I also remind myself that I would not expect the applicant’s evidence to be completely consistent and that with each occasion the account is given, there may be variations and recall is not always perfect. I also have regard to the fact that on all occasions an interpreter has been used. Therefore, whenever a discrepancy arises in the applicant’s account I have to decide whether it may be explained by any one, or a combination, of these reasons.
58. The applicant’s initial witness statement was dated 1 October 2025. It was supplemented by a second witness statement dated 29 May 2026 and his oral evidence.
59. In his first witness statement, the applicant said he has known his age since he was seven when his mother took him to register at school. He has been consistent about this throughout and his evidence accords with the background material about when children in Ethiopia start school [HB200].
60. In his oral evidence, he said that once he started school, his age was recorded on a school certificate and he was asked his age every year thereafter. He does not remember if the certificate also recorded his date of birth. He knew he started school in 2015 because that is what is said on the school certificate but also his mother told him. His parents kept the certificates at home.
61. In his first witness statement he said he has known his date of birth since 2020 when he was told upon celebrating his 12th birthday. He said that was the first occasion they celebrated his birthday. He was told his date of birth using the Western calendar. He does not have any documents because they are not issued until the age of 18 in Ethiopia. In his second witness statement he clarified that what he meant in his first witness statement was that his mother told him his date of birth on his 12th birthday, as opposed to that was when she told him his date of birth in the Western calendar.
62. In his oral evidence, and in contrast to the above, the applicant said he celebrated his birthday with his family a few times in his life, such as 2017 and 2019 and the last time was on his 12th birthday (2020). He also said he was told his date of birth before his 12th birthday as well. When the difference with his witness statement was put to him, he said his witness statement was incorrect and he did not remember saying that was the first time he was told. He is not sure why he did not mention in his witness statement that he also learnt of his date of birth in 2019. He speculated that perhaps he was not asked. His mother told him his date of birth on every occasion they celebrated his birthday. His parents also wrote it down. He remembered that they did not celebrate again after 2020 because of the instability of the family and his father’s disappearance.
63. I find it difficult to reconcile this conflicting evidence on such a key issue. I do not find it is an evolution in his account. There is a direct conflict in his evidence which, in my judgment has not been reasonably explained. Whilst Ms Ferrin submitted that in oral evidence he gave spontaneous evidence about what age he would have been in the other years given (which I accept), that does not change the fact that he said something completely different in his witness statement. That witness statement was provided in his first language and it is reasonable to expect it was taken in a much less stressful environment, where he had an opportunity to check its accuracy. Indeed, at the hearing, he confirmed that was so.
64. Furthermore, as the respondent noted, when asked how he knew his date of birth at the Brief Enquiry, the applicant gave a different answer. When he was asked how he knows his date of birth he said “my mother told me and based on that they put me in school and based on that they do everything they need to do”. He was then asked about documentation. When he said he did not have any, he was asked again how he knows his date of birth is correct and he said “I knew it when I was just grown up and went to school. I knew that when DOB is recorded”. The question was repeated and he said “my family, my parents told me this is my birthday. And based on that, that is how I knew” [HB805-6]. There is no reference here to being told his date of birth on his 12th birthday and the overriding impression here is that he was told his date of birth (not just his age) when he started school. That is again a different account.
65. As to his siblings, in his first witness statement the applicant said he has an older sister and when he was 14 he remembered his mother telling her she was born in 2005, three years before him. His younger sister was born in 2012 and his younger brother in 2015 (making them 20, 13 and 10 respectively).
66. In his second witness statement, he said he may not have been correct in the first statement about the younger siblings’ years of birth. He knows there are three years’ difference between them all but because he does not know the months of their births, they may have been born in 2011 and 2014.
67. In his oral evidence, the applicant reverted to his original position saying that his elder sister was born in 2005, the younger sister in 2012 and the third in 2015. He said he doubted the year his younger sister was born. He has based his evidence on his mother saying that she was born three years after him.
68. At the very least, this evidence is confused and represents the applicant’s lack of clarity about his siblings’ ages and dates of birth. I think he accepts he does not know their specific dates of birth. As to the impact that has upon his knowledge of his own age, it leads me to question whether his confusion results from him either forgetting or getting confused about what he has said about his own date of birth.
69. As to calendars, in his first witness statement the applicant said that the family celebrated Christian holidays and events and he gave some of those dates both in the Western and Ethiopian calendar (he said in his screening interview that he was Christian and this is not disputed). He learnt both calendars at school and his sister helped him.
70. In his oral evidence, he reiterated his evidence about how he learnt to use the Ethiopian and Western calendars and he said his parents would overhear his conversations about that with his older sister. His mother went to school when she was a child so she was able to assist with homework. I note his evidence about the use of both calendars is corroborated by the article at [HB210]. I do not find there to be any inconsistency in his evidence on this issue.
71. As to when he stopped going to school and his father’s disappearance, in his first witness statement, he said he stopped attending school about a week after his 12th birthday on the day his father disappeared. In his oral evidence, he said that his father disappeared on 29 June 2020 which was the date that the singer Hachalu Hundessa was assassinated and it was also the last day he went to school. When it was put to him that he told the social worker at the Brief Enquiry [HB807] that he left school when he was “12 years and some months” he denied saying that, rather he said it was a ‘few days’ after his 12th birthday. It was also put to him that when he spoke to the psychiatrist earlier this year, he could not remember how old he was when he stopped school (see para. 7.5 at [HB869]). He said that he was not feeling well that day and that might explain why he said that.
72. The above reveals some inconsistency here, not about the date his father disappeared, but how old he was that day and when he left school. As to the reference to months, I do not attach much weight to that because in the assessors notes the full answer he gave to the question, “what age were you when you left school?” he said “12 years and some months”. When asked about the specific month he said “June 2020”. Of course, his claimed date of birth meant he would have turned 12 on the 21 June 2020 so a few days after that would still be in June 2020. That was the more specific part of his answer when pressed so I do not find the reference to “a few months” in the earlier response to do any real damage to his credibility on this issue.
73. Other than the above, the applicant does not identify any other occasion when what he said to the psychiatrist was impacted by him not feeling well. Indeed, otherwise he places significant reliance on that report.
74. As to his physical appearance, in his first witness statement he said he does not think it is surprising that he has hair on his face given his claimed age and had no way of taking care of his appearance when travelling. In oral evidence, he disputed that he accepts he looks older than his claimed age. However, when I asked him about that he said he thinks the harsh weather did have an impact on the appearance of his face. I have already accepted that there may be some impact of his journey on his appearance upon arrival into the UK (see [48] above) and I have accepted that evidence of shaving for this applicant, given he was claiming to be 17 on arrival, is not surprising and not inconsistent with this claimed date of birth (see [37] above).
75. He denied telling his GP he was 18 years old [HB867]. This arose from his GP records, an entry on 29 August 2025 which recorded that the applicant “says he is younger than 22 (18)”. As at that date, he would have been 17 years old on his claimed date of birth. Ms Ferrin submitted no weight should attach to this entry given the lack of detail as to whether an interpreter was used and because such an entry is not one where forensic scrutiny would be expected. There is merit in these submissions even though I would expect a Doctor to want to be clear about their patient’s age. However, in the circumstances, I do not place any real weight on this entry in the medical notes.
76. As to other aspects of his evidence, I note that in his first witness statement the applicant said he felt quite stressed in the age assessment. He said the interpreter was on the phone. It is not clear to me whether he was talking about the Brief Enquiry or the Home Office assessment of his age. He was recorded as saying at the Brief Enquiry that he felt stressed. I do not doubt that the applicant felt stressed at both of the interviews. He was bound to. Nevertheless, that did not appear to radiate through to the assessors in either as they all found him to present in a calm and mature way. To the extent it is relevant, I thought the same of the applicant when he appeared at the hearing, and I do not doubt he felt quite stressed then. Of itself, that is not decisive or even particularly helpful to determine a person’s age. People deal with stress differently. Some show it and some do not. That applies to children and adults.
77. As to his social media, in his oral evidence, he denied that the phone had a Facebook account on it. He did not have an account until he was in the UK. It was set up in August 2025. He said he had help setting up that account and the date of birth stated on the account (3 October 2000) is wrong. He denied telling that person his date of birth, only how old he was. This contrasts with the evidence of the applicant’s solicitor (see [52] above) who said that the applicant had instructed him that he told his friend his year of birth in the Ethiopian calendar and the day and month were chosen at random. I find this a significant inconsistency.
78. In relation to his journey to the UK, in his oral evidence, the applicant explained that he was in prison from the ninth month in 2023 to the fourth month in 2024. He remembers those dates as they are important ones. He left prison in the evening of the 19th. He maintained that he has been consistent that his journey to the UK took 1 year and 4 months and he denied working backwards from the date he entered the UK. He said he was able to keep track of dates because by the time he was in Libya he had a phone. I accept the applicant’s timeline about his journey to the UK has been consistent. In fact, it has not really been challenged. I do not find it directly relevant to the question of the applicant’s likely age.
79. In his first witness statement, the applicant said he does not like his accommodation because everyone is older than him. It reminds him of the time he spent in prison in Ethiopia. I do not find this to indicate, without more, that he was more likely to be a child on arrival. The applicant could be the assessed age and still be surrounded by people older than him given he was placed in adult accommodation.
80. I have referred already to some of the background material, and I note the submission about ST (see [20] above). I accept none of this material undermines the applicant’s account. Given that it is likely to be common knowledge, I do not find it to be of real assistance to determine the applicant’s age.
81. The applicant has been granted asylum. In his screening interview, the applicant reported his imprisonment, claimed he was accused of supporting the Oromo Liberation Front and would be at risk there accordingly. His account did not rely on him being a child and at that time his account would have been evaluated on the basis he was an adult given that was what he was assessed to be. Ms Ferrin submitted that his narrative is very much informed by what happened to his father and his subsequent imprisonment, that he is familiar with the Western calendar and so he has the ability to work to clear timelines in his mind. She submitted that means he should be treated as credible when he talks about his father’s disappearance and events around that time, such as that being when he left school.
82. On the assessed date of birth, the applicant would have been 17 at that time. The evidence about school leaving in Ethiopia at [HB203] shows that by the age of 17 approximately 45% of males were not at school. That means that most were still at school so, even if the applicant were older than claimed, the fact he was at school would still fit with his narrative otherwise.
83. Overall, notwithstanding that the applicant has consistently provided the same claimed date of birth and age, it is clear from what I have set out above, that the applicant has been inconsistent about elements of his account. In fact, I find him to have been inconsistent about most key parts of his evidence about how he knows his date of birth and age (and/or when he found about them). Furthermore, he has been inconsistent about why his Facebook account shows the wrong date of birth.
84. I have evaluated the applicant’s evidence carefully. I have considered it in the round and in light of the Presidential Guidance and the medical evidence. As mentioned earlier, the medical evidence does not expressly say that his particular mental health conditions or past trauma mean he may not be able to give an accurate account. Many of the inconsistencies arise from what the applicant said at the hearing where the reasonable adjustments Dr Rauf recommended were implemented. I am driven to the conclusion that the applicant is an unreliable witness on the issue of how he knows his date of birth and age.
Conclusions
85. Drawing all these factors together, I have considered the evidence in the round as much as possible. I have reminded myself of the applicable legal principles. I do not need to determine the lawfulness of the Brief Enquiry but I do need to determine the weight, if any, to attach. I have done this above. I say, in passing, that the decision not to do a full Merton-compliant age assessment has made the task of the Tribunal harder because the assistance which may otherwise be derived from it is not available.
86. There is no documentary evidence to support the applicant’s account about his age. The evidence about the applicant’s physical appearance, demeanour and behaviour does not significantly assist me in determining the applicant’s age for all the reasons I have given. The applicant was mostly consistent about the rest of his account, such as his journey to the UK and other events in Ethiopia, and they were not really the subject of challenge. There was some background support for what he said on some of the key issues but none of those are decisive for the reasons I have given. The evidence of his social media activity is quite limited. It does not really assist me to determine the applicant’s age although there is some corroboration for his account from the Snapchat account and some inconsistent evidence about the Facebook account. No one else (except the applicant) has offered a counterpoint to the assessors as to his likely age (such as someone who has got to know him here or interacted with him over a period of time).
87. I am left with credibility. I remind myself that credibility is not always material to the question of age but, the focus of any credibility assessment should be the evidence about how a person knows their age. I also remind myself that a person may not tell the truth about some aspects of their account but that does not mean the whole of their account is untrue. However, it is on the key issue of how he knows his age and, particularly, his date of birth that the applicant has been inconsistent and, for the reasons I have given, I do not find that those inconsistencies are likely to have arisen for medical or other reasons (such as those outlined at [57] above). Given the extent of consistent evidence the applicant has provided on other issues, I find it difficult to conclude that the various inconsistencies I have found on the issue of age/date of birth are explained by anything other than the applicant being confused about, or forgetting, what he had said on other occasions, thereby rendering his accounts inconsistent. They undermine his evidence concerning his age and date of birth such that I cannot place any real weight on his evidence about that.
88. I return to the Brief Enquiry, corroborated as it is by the Home Office age assessment. For all the reasons I have given, the Brief Enquiry is far from determinative of the applicant’s age. However, I have attached some (albeit limited) weight to it and to the Home Office initial age enquiry. I find the latter to corroborate the former. When that evidence is combined with the adverse credibility findings I have made about the applicant’s evidence about his age, I am not left in any doubt about whether the applicant is over 18. I do not find I need to extend him the benefit of the doubt about his age. I find it more likely that he was an adult upon arrival into the UK.
89. That leaves the question of what date of birth should be declared having decided the applicant was an adult on arrival into the UK. There is no other evidence as to what the applicant’s date of birth actually is. I remind myself that I am not obliged to choose between either of the party’s position, so I am not obliged to defer to the respondent’s assessment of his date of birth. However, I note that the Home Office allocated the applicant a date of birth which was towards the younger end of the range at which they assessed him as being (22-24). I also find that that date of birth allocated to the applicant appears consistent with the rest of the account the applicant gives and which was not challenged at the hearing. For example, as I explained at [82], it still means his account of finishing school upon his father’s disappearance is consistent with background material of most boys still being at school at 17 years of age. Furthermore, I note that the applicant’s asylum claim was accepted with him being at the assessed age, so it is likely that age was consistent with the factual matrix giving rise to his asylum claim. For those reasons, I find that the allocated date of birth is likely to be one which reflects the truth of the rest of the applicant’s history.
Declaration
90. The applicant was an adult upon arrival into the United Kingdom and his date of birth is 21 June 2003.
~~~~0~~~~
In the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Judicial Review
In the matter of an application for Judicial Review
The King on the application of
JLG
Applicant
and
Derby City Council
Respondent
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Rastogi sitting at Field House, Bream’s Buildings, London EC4A 1WR at a fact-finding hearing on 16 June 2026 to determine the applicant’s age and date of birth
UPON consideration of the documents lodged by the parties and having heard from Counsel for the Applicant and Counsel for the Respondent
AND UPON the Tribunal handing down judgment on 2 September 2026 in the absence of the parties
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
1. The Applicant was born on 21 June 2003.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons given in the judgment.
2. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s reasonable costs, to be the subject of a detailed assessment if not agreed and subject to a determination of his ability to pay such costs pursuant to s26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
3. There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.
4. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is refused, no application for such permission having been made, on the basis that there is no arguable material error of law in the judgment.
Signed: SJ Rastogi
Upper Tribunal Judge Rastogi
Dated: 2 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): 02/09/2026
Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:
Case No: JR-2025-LON-004148
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
2 September 2026
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RASTOGI
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
JLG
Applicant
- and -
DERBY CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms S. Ferrin
(instructed by Luke and Bridger Law), for the applicant
Mr M. Millington
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the respondent
Hearing date: 16 June 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge Rastogi:
1. By these judicial review proceedings the applicant challenges the respondent’s assessment of his age.
2. The applicant is a national of Ethiopia. He claims to have been born on 21 June 2008 which made him 17 years old upon arrival into the UK when he was assessed as an adult and assigned the date of birth 21 June 2003 by officials from the Home Office. That was confirmed by the respondent’s age assessors following a Brief Enquiry of his age on 15 August 2025 (the decision under challenge). They concluded he was clearly an adult on the basis of his physical appearance and demeanour. The date of birth assigned to him means he would have been 22 upon arrival. Although he was referred into the National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”), on 29 July 2025 a negative reasonable grounds decision was made on the basis of “insufficient information to meet the standard of proof required”. He was granted asylum on 5 February 2026.
3. Following initial pre-action correspondence, these proceedings were issued at the High Court on 1 October 2025. The applicant challenges the assessment of his age on the single ground that the respondent’s assessment of the applicant’s age was wrong. The ground was founded upon a number of specific criticisms of the decision and the process resulting in the decision.
4. Permission was granted but interim relief was refused meaning that the applicant remained in adult accommodation and was not afforded the benefit of services normally offered to looked after children. The proceedings were transferred to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing with the sole purpose of determining the applicant’s age and date of birth. That is dispositive of the proceedings. Case Management directions about evidence and disclosure were made.
5. On 4 June 2026 the applicant applied for permission to admit late evidence, namely a second witness statement from the applicant, and the report of Dr H. Rauf dated 31 March 2026. That was to be considered de bene esse. In the event, the respondent did not oppose the application and I admit the evidence.
6. Only the applicant gave evidence before me with the assistance of an Oromo speaking interpreter. For the purposes of the hearing, I treated the applicant as a vulnerable witness in accordance with "Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance" and based on [9.14]-[9.17] of Dr Rauf’s report which recommended certain adjustments. The applicant was given various breaks throughout the hearing. I indicated at the hearing that I would reserve my position on the extent to which, if at all, the applicant’s mental health and vulnerability are relevant to the assessment of the applicant’s evidence.
7. I had the benefit of a hearing bundle which was updated with the amended expert report and ran to 901 pages (“HB”). I was also provided with an Authorities Bundle (“AB”). I heard submissions on behalf of both parties and had the benefit of both advocates’ skeleton arguments for which I am grateful. At the end of the hearing, I reserved my decision.
Legal Framework
8. The relevant legal framework in age assessments is well known and uncontentious. Counsel both helpfully set out the relevant legal framework in their respective skeleton arguments, to which I have had regard. There were no real areas of dispute between them about it. As such, I set out the core principles in summary only.
9. The Upper Tribunal is required to determine as an objective fact the age of the applicant and is not bound to choose between one or other of the parties’ positions when doing so (MC v Lewisham CC [2011] 1 FLR 728).
10. Neither party is required to prove the precedent fact. The Tribunal is to ask whether the precedent fact (of whether or not the applicant is a child at the material time) exists on the balance of probabilities, and the approach is an inquisitorial one. A sympathetic assessment of the evidence is appropriate (R(CJ) Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590; R(AI) v West Berkshire Council [2025] EWCA Civ 136 ). Nevertheless, as this is still a claim for judicial review, the applicant has to establish there is some material upon which the Tribunal could reach a conclusion contrary to that found by the respondent; the better the quality of the initial decision-making, the less likely it is the Court will come to a different decision (A v Croydon LBC and M v Lambeth LBC [2009] UKSC 8).
11. The guidelines for lawful assessments of age are set out in B v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin) and R (AS) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWHC 2091 (Admin) where certain minimum standards were listed at [19]; although as in R (on the application of HAM) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin) there may be occasions on which the requirements for fairness may be met without a full Merton-compliant assessment and be based on evidence of appearance and demeanour alone (although these are likely to be rare). The older a person looks on their appearance, the more weight can attach to their appearance (on this, see further below).
12. Issues of vulnerability and trauma must be taken into account insofar as relevant (Association of Directors of Children’s Services Age Assessment Guidance, October 2015).
13. Almost all evidence of physical characteristics is likely to be of limited value given the lack of clear relationship between chronological age and most measurable aspects of physical maturity. Observations on demeanour are particularly unreliable in the context of brief, one-time encounters with individuals. A more useful assessment of such matters emanates from those with experience of the individual over a considerable period of time (R (AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council IAAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 (IAC)).
14. It is permissible to take into account the applicant’s general credibility, but care should be taken to ensure that particular importance is afforded to the credibility of the person’s evidence in relation to age (MVN v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC 1942 (Admin)).
15. The fact that an individual has been untruthful about one aspect of their claim does not mean that the same necessarily applies to their evidence about their age (R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin)).
16. All relevant evidence must be considered in the round.
17. The advantages of a person persuading the authorities they are under 18 are well-known (R (A) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] EWHC 939 (Admin)).
18. The benefit of the doubt is to be afforded to the applicant only where, having considered the evidence, the Tribunal remains in doubt as to whether the applicant is over 18 or not, in which case it should conclude that the applicant is under 18 (R (AS) v Kent County Council (age assessment; dental evidence) [2017] UKUT 00446 (IAC)).
The Submissions
19. Mr Millington submitted that, in the absence of documentary or other independent evidence of the applicant’s age, the starting point should be the applicant’s credibility which he submitted was damaged because of the numerous inconsistencies throughout his evidence. He submitted that should be contrasted with the evidence of the experienced professional social workers who have assessed the applicant to be an adult and which is corroborated by the only other evidence of the applicant’s age, namely the assessment by the Home Office officials. He submitted that weight can properly attach to the Brief Enquiry as confirmed in the relevant authorities, and in light of the assessors’ experience and the absence of other evidence about the applicant’s age.
20. Ms Ferrin submitted that the applicant had, in fact, provided a coherent and truthful account and he has explained credibly the inconsistencies. Some of those can be more accurately characterised as an evolution of his account. On the key issues he has remained consistent, such as his age. On others his account accords with what is known about the country situation in Ethiopia, such as identification documentation being issued once a person is 18 years of age, that most people do not have a birth certificate and that one is not required to start school (ST (Ethnic Eritrea – nationality – return) Ethiopia CG [2011] UKUT 00252 (IAC) para. 106 and para. 107 of Appendix A apply). Whilst it is accepted that age can be lawfully assessed solely on the basis of physical appearance and demeanour, Ms Ferrin submitted that should not be the case here as the difference between the claimed and disputed age (17 v 22) is not that significant, particularly because at 17 the applicant would have gone through puberty and it cannot be reliably said that he looks 22 rather than 17. In that situation, the Brief Enquiry is not Merton-compliant, particularly when the applicant’s ethnicity is taken into account, the absence of an appropriate adult and lack of acknowledgement of his trauma and mental health. She submitted these dangers are not counteracted by the assessors’ expertise.
Discussion of the Evidence
21. For convenience, I have set out my evaluation of the evidence in sections. The order in which I do so does not denote the weight to attach to each section. When reaching my conclusions, I have considered all the evidence in the round and in light of the detailed submissions I heard.
The Psychiatric Evidence – 31 March 2026
22. There was no dispute over Dr Rauf’s expertise or the content of her report. She is a consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist. Dr Rauf assessed the applicant on 24 March 2026 over Zoom with the assistance of an Oromo interpreter. There was an error at [7.8] of the report which Dr Rauf corrected by way of a letter dated 15 June 2026. At first she had said that the applicant was 13 years old when he went to prison but corrected this to 15 years old. Her clinical opinion was that the applicant displayed psychological symptoms of trauma and was prescribed antidepressant medication which was effective “with his trauma and low mood symptoms” [9.1]. He no longer takes it because it was stopped five months earlier [7.3]. His symptoms seem to be “much better” than they were when he arrived in August 2025 [9.10]. He currently suffers from “mild to moderate depression and some symptoms of PTSD” which are consistent with someone who has endured physical/psychological and emotional trauma and his claimed life experiences (the disappearance of his father; his imprisonment; ill-treatment in Libya; journey to the UK) [9.3] and that there is “no alternative explanation of his current mental health symptoms” [9.4]. Dr Rauf said the applicant “might benefit” from one-to-one therapy for up to 6 months, to be reviewed. Dr Rauf opined that it is “difficult” to say that the applicant is feigning his symptoms but “he has consistently given the same account for his journey, so he appears to be credible” and she noted no inconsistent or exaggerated psychiatric symptoms”.
23. I have had regard to this report when evaluating the applicant’s evidence. In doing so, I have noted that the applicant is no longer taking anti-depressant medication and his symptoms are much better than they were although he still has some. There is no evidence that the applicant has received the therapeutic counselling he may need.
24. Applying the Joint Presidential Guidance Note, I note the effect his symptoms and past trauma might have on the applicant’s ability to provide a coherent account of his history. I also note that, whilst Dr Rauf recommended some adjustments for the hearing, she did not expressly comment in her report about the applicant’s ability to give a coherent account. For example, she did not say that his memory might be impacted by his past trauma and/or his mental health. She gave advice about reasonable adjustments which was followed so as to enable the applicant to give his best evidence. In the circumstances, whilst I of course keep the Presidential Guidance in mind, I note the lack of specific medical evidence either directly about the applicant’s age, or about any known or recognised memory or cognitive difficulties.
The respondent’s Brief Enquiry into the applicant’s age (“the Brief Enquiry”)
25. It is not in dispute that the respondent carried out a Brief Enquiry into the applicant’s age rather than a detailed age assessment. Neither is it in dispute that, in some circumstances, such a course of action is permissible without offending the Merton principles. Indeed such a course was contemplated at [27] and [38] of Merton.
26. In Merton, it was held that there may be cases where it is “very obvious” that a person is under or over 18 in which case there is no need for a prolonged enquiry [27]. At [28] reference is made to “clear cases”. In R(AB) v Kent County Council [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin), the court declined to define a margin whereby assessments based on physical attributes and demeanour alone are appropriate, deciding instead that it should depend on the facts of the case. In R (HAM), Swift J reiterated that what matters is that there has been a reasonable investigation and fair process on the facts of the case.
27. On that issue, I have considered the process undertaken here. I accept that the assessing social workers are experienced. In particular, it is expressly noted that one of them has 19 years of working with children in care. They are both accepted as being trained age assessors. Accordingly, their opinion is on the face of it worthy of weight. An interpreter was used. I accept there is no evidence that an appropriate adult was present. That is not, of itself, determinative of the Enquiry being unfair, because each case is to be taken on the particular circumstance of the case. The question is whether the applicant was able to properly contribute and respond to matters going to his credibility (HAM).
28. The Brief Enquiry is set out in a template form headed “Outcome of Brief Enquiry of Age” which provides for a “minded to” section and space allowed for the applicant’s response to the assessors’ concerns. Immediately thereafter is a section for the assessors’ final conclusions. It appears this whole process is contemplated to take place in the same sitting and arises because the assessors already take the view that it is ‘very obvious’ that a person is over 18.
29. In the applicant’s case, the assessors noted the applicant had no documentary evidence to support his claimed date of birth. They noted the assessment of the Home Office Officials who originally assigned him the date of birth 21 June 2003. Under the heading “Minded to decision” the assessors note that they do not accept his claimed date of birth and consider him to be an adult. A narrative response set out what the assessors told the applicant. In summary, they explained he had been assessed by 2 qualified social workers with a combined experience exceeding 19 years of working with children from various backgrounds and cultures. Then they said:
“We feel that in physical appearance and demeanour you present as an adult with significant facial stubble, receding hairline, and forehead lines. You presented as quite mature despite a number of delays regarding getting an interpreter.”
30. In response, the applicant continued to dispute the assigned age. As to the comments about his face, he said :
I have told you I have been through difficult situations since 2023. I was also in prison. There was a lot of problems and abuse in prison. Because of beard my family a lot of them have beard like this.”
31. Returning to the template, the assessors noted that after considering the applicant’s response they remained of the view that he was an adult (in physical appearance and demeanour). The other options available to the assessors would have been to assess him as a child or to doubt his claimed date of birth and arrange a full Merton-compliant age assessment.
32. To supplement the Brief Enquiry, the respondent also relied on the assessors’ handwritten notes. Both assessors appear to have taken notes and two copies of each of their notes appear in the bundle. In the main they are consistent, but the notes which start at [HB804] are slightly more detailed than those which appear from [HB833] and where there are differences I prefer the more detailed version for that reason. They both reveal, of relevance, that the interview could not go ahead at first as no interpreter was available and, that two minutes in, there were “technical issues” which lasted for 8 minutes. One says the interview re-started at ‘13.16’ hours [HB833] and the other said it then stopped at 13.18 and re-started at 13.26. They both said it ended at 14.02. In other words a total substantive time of about 36-40 minutes. When enquiring how the applicant was feeling, he responded that he had not eaten because he was a bit “stress about things”. Therein the social workers asked how the applicant knew his date of birth to which he said “my mother told me and based on that they put me in school and based on that they do everything they need to do”. Later he added that he was seven years old when they put him in school and that he left when he was “12 years and some months … June 2020”. He explained his mother knew the date and would tell him on that date that it was his birthday. He said he had no identification documents yet “because of his age” and then explained then he would have to be 18 years old to get documents in Ethiopia.
33. I have some reservations about the ‘minded to’ process in a situation where the assessors’ view that it is ‘very obvious’ they are over 18 (on the basis that I do not know what a person may say to make them change their mind). I accept it is a requirement, and it appears to have been followed here. I note the applicant was able to respond to the concerns raised and his answer addressed those concerns.
34. I find it difficult to understand why the more detailed account the applicant gave to the assessors, as evidenced by their notes was either not recorded on the Brief Enquiry form or otherwise evaluated. I assume this is because the assessors decided it was ‘very obvious’ he was over 18 so decided (as the Brief Enquiry template says) that a prolonged enquiry is not required [HB10].
35. However, that means it was solely the applicant’s appearance, demeanour and lack of documentation which provided the reasoning for the assessors reaching the decision they did. The assessors did not expressly refer to the Home Office age assessment, save to note its finding that he was assessed as being 22.
36. I pause here to note that I do not find there to be any real concern that the applicant was not able to express himself at the Brief Enquiry. He appeared to answer their questions cogently and appropriately. The absence of an appropriate adult does not appear to have had an obvious impact on the fairness of the process.
37. As to the applicant’s presentation, photos were taken during the Brief Enquiry – a full length one at [HB831] and a close up at [HB832]. I cannot see signs of stubble to corroborate what the assessors described in the Brief Enquiry but I am not sure that matters given the applicant accepts he had started shaving by the time of his arrival into the UK. The photo does not show obvious stubble though so it rather undermines what the assessors have described as “significant stubble” which reduces the weight to attach to that part of their reasoning. The photo reveals what may be described as a ‘receding’ hairline, but whether it is in fact receding or merely the applicant’s natural hairline is not evidenced before me. I do not attach any real weight to that part of the description given by the assessors as evidence of his age. I find it a neutral factor. The photo does show some blemishes and marks on the applicant’s face and some faint lines on his forehead which corroborate what the assessors said plus clearer lines on his cheeks (side of the nose and downwards) and mouth. Based on the photo alone I am not in a position to say that it is ‘very clear’ the applicant was over 18 at the time it was taken. If that represented how the applicant presented to the assessors, I do not find it to offer any significant support for their overall conclusion that the applicant was very clearly an adult, particularly in light of the fact that physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis to assess age.
38. As to the assessors’ comments about the applicant’s demeanour, they said he appeared “quite mature” in light of the delays and the interpreter problems but they did not further explain what they meant. The only detail about the problems are contained in the handwritten notes (see [32] above) but they are limited. I treat this as meaning that the applicant appeared more mature than a child would have done at the assessment. I find this to fit in with their overall conclusion that he was “very clearly” an adult but it is very light on detail and explanation.
39. I have regard to what the Upper Tribunal said at [19] of AM, namely:
“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.”
40. There is no suggestion the assessors tried to seek the views of anyone who may have known the applicant. That is because they decided he was very clearly an adult and they did not need to progress to a more prolonged enquiry.
41. In all the circumstances, whilst I do not doubt that the assessors believed the applicant presented as ‘very clearly’ an adult for the reasons they have provided, and that they are qualified to carry out such assessments, I do not find their reasoning to satisfy me that their Brief Enquiry should attract anything more than limited weight on the issue of the applicant’s age.
The Home Office Initial Age Decision [HB617]
42. This was disclosed as part of the respondent’s disclosure and is relied on by the respondent as corroborating the Brief Enquiry. I return to the issue of corroboration below.
43. The assessment took place on 19 July 2025. On that occasion, a social worker was present as was an interpreter (by phone).
44. The assessment was conducted by two Home Office officials who asked various questions about the applicant’s health, journey to the UK, life in Ethiopia and his appearance. When it was put to the applicant that he appeared to be older than he claimed he said “I think it is because of being in prison and the journey has worn me down but my age is correct”.
45. There is no evidence about the expertise of the officers who carried out the assessment save that I note one of the two officers was described as a “higher” Border Force Officer (“BFHO”). As to the social worker who was present, I have not been directed to any evidence about whether they are trained in age assessment, but I note that the “Assessing Officer’s Report” dated 19 July 2025 at [HB611] records the notes of the BFHO as follows:
“Social worker (redacted) was present during the interview and is in agreement with the assessment. The opinion of the social worker has been given significant weight due to their experience in this field”.
46. In their assessment, the Home Office officials set out a description of the applicant’s appearance [HB619-620], demeanour [HB620] and behaviour; together with a summary of what the applicant had said about his life in Ethiopia and his journey to the UK [HB620-621]. Their conclusion was as follows:
“JLG’s physical appearance and demeanour strongly suggest that he is
significantly over the age of 18 years old. I have taken into consideration
environmental and journey details and my assessment is based on all the
information and observations I have made during the interview.
It is a fact that age assessments are inherently uncertain however it is my recommendation that JLG is processed as an adult with an age range of 22 – 24 years.
A Border Force Officer and a Higher Border Force Officer have assessed
you as an adult aged 22 years, they have also provided you with a new date of birth (21.06.2003) to reflect their decision.”
47. As to presentation, I have regard to the fact that the assessment took place upon the applicant’s arrival into the UK when he had not long got off a boat and following a lengthy journey since his departure from Ethiopia resulting in a period of time in the Calais Jungle shortly before boarding the boat (this was not expressly challenged by the respondent). I note the Home Office officials were also minded of this fact because they referred to and said they had considered whether that would explain the applicant’s mature appearance. At [HB620] they noted the applicant’s view that his older appearance is because of “the life I have led”. However, they concluded this did not explain the applicant’s appearance as older than his claimed age although they did not elaborate any further.
48. The respondent has not challenged the applicant’s account of his journey. I am prepared to accept that it would have been a difficult journey. I accept on arrival into the UK, this may have some impact on his appearance in that he may appear, for example, dishevelled, tired or stressed. I note that there is a small passport style photo of the applicant appended to the Bail notice issued to him on 20 July 2025 (the day after the Home Office initial age inquiry). It is a black and white photo, and is very dark. But at [HB827] there is a colour copy which is named in the index as the Home Office photo of the applicant. From there I can see obvious facial lines on the applicant’s forehead, under his cheek area and around his mouth. I find these to be neutral factors given the inherent unreliability of physical characteristics as evidence of age. I find this to be even more so given that, at the time he was being observed, the applicant had only just arrived in the UK following a long journey from Ethiopia and a small boat crossing from France.
49. As for demeanour, I note the officers considered the applicant to be calm, co-operative, did not present with any child-like behaviours nor any anxiety. In particular the officer said “his ability to emotionally regulate despite saying he had been traumatised was a mature response to the process” [HB620]. That assessment ties in with the respondent’s assessors’ views of the applicant’s maturity. However, neither the Home Office officers nor the assessors had the advantage of viewing the applicant over a prolonged period so there is very little assistance to be gained from short observations of demeanour in this type of setting (see [39] above).
50. Given the lack of detail in the evidence about the expertise of the officers and social workers who carried out this assessment, I find there is significant limit to the weight I can attach to it. However, I note there are certain features which ensured fairness, such as the presence of the social worker and the interpreter and at least some consideration about the impact of trauma. The applicant was given an opportunity to comment on the Home Office officials’ observations about his demeanour and to answer questions about his age. However, like the respondent’s assessors, and notwithstanding that they collected more information from the applicant, there was no attempt to evaluate the account the applicant gave of his age or journey to the UK. Likewise, their opinion was formed entirely from the lack of documentary evidence of age and the applicant’s physical appearance and demeanour which they felt “very strongly suggest he is significantly over the age of 18” [HB612].
51. For all the reasons I have given, these aspects are notoriously unreliable indicators of age. Nevertheless, as I said in relation to the respondent’s assessors, I do not doubt this was the genuine view of the Home Office officials. I find their assessment to offer some corroboration of the Brief Enquiry in that all four of the officials assessing the applicant decided he was obviously or very clearly an adult.
The Social Media Evidence
52. The applicant’s solicitor, Mr Bridger, carried out the social media enquiries and provided two statements dated 18 December 2025 and 23 January 2026 detailing the results. In summary, there is a Facebook account in the applicant’s name and which shows the date of birth as 3 October 2000. The applicant instructed Mr Bridger that arose because he told his friend that he was born in 2000 using the Ethiopian calendar and the day and month were chosen randomly. As will be seen at [77] below, the applicant denied this in his oral evidence.
53. The material from the download was in Chinese. The initial log is dated 6 June 2023 in Taiwan. There was no further activity until 17 September 2025. The Facebook data shows the applicant’s gender as female. It reveals password changes on various dates in 2025 before the applicant arrived in the UK and in different locations across the world as does the activity, even during periods when the applicant was in the UK. The other locations are mainly in the US.
54. Mr Bridger also refers to the applicant’s Snapchat account which shows his date of birth as 21 June 2008 (the claimed date of birth). There is no date of birth associated with the TikTok account in his name. His Whatsapp account does not reveal any messages relevant to the issue of age.
55. The position in relation to the Facebook account is confusing and I do not find it to assist me in determining the applicant’s age either way (although I return to the issue when assessing the applicant’s credibility).
56. Neither am I greatly assisted by the Snapchat, WhatsApp or TikTok accounts. I note there is nothing to which I have been directed arising from these accounts which undermine the applicant’s claim about his age. Whilst the Snapchat account contains the claimed date of birth, it would be surprising if an account which the applicant started after arrival into the UK gave an age which was other than his claimed one. Accordingly, whilst I note that it affords some corroboration, I find it to be of marginal assistance.
The applicant’s evidence about his age
57. When evaluating the applicant’s evidence, I have kept in mind that he may be a minor and he has been through trauma. Accordingly, he was treated as a vulnerable person at the hearing and given reasonable adjustments. I also remind myself that I would not expect the applicant’s evidence to be completely consistent and that with each occasion the account is given, there may be variations and recall is not always perfect. I also have regard to the fact that on all occasions an interpreter has been used. Therefore, whenever a discrepancy arises in the applicant’s account I have to decide whether it may be explained by any one, or a combination, of these reasons.
58. The applicant’s initial witness statement was dated 1 October 2025. It was supplemented by a second witness statement dated 29 May 2026 and his oral evidence.
59. In his first witness statement, the applicant said he has known his age since he was seven when his mother took him to register at school. He has been consistent about this throughout and his evidence accords with the background material about when children in Ethiopia start school [HB200].
60. In his oral evidence, he said that once he started school, his age was recorded on a school certificate and he was asked his age every year thereafter. He does not remember if the certificate also recorded his date of birth. He knew he started school in 2015 because that is what is said on the school certificate but also his mother told him. His parents kept the certificates at home.
61. In his first witness statement he said he has known his date of birth since 2020 when he was told upon celebrating his 12th birthday. He said that was the first occasion they celebrated his birthday. He was told his date of birth using the Western calendar. He does not have any documents because they are not issued until the age of 18 in Ethiopia. In his second witness statement he clarified that what he meant in his first witness statement was that his mother told him his date of birth on his 12th birthday, as opposed to that was when she told him his date of birth in the Western calendar.
62. In his oral evidence, and in contrast to the above, the applicant said he celebrated his birthday with his family a few times in his life, such as 2017 and 2019 and the last time was on his 12th birthday (2020). He also said he was told his date of birth before his 12th birthday as well. When the difference with his witness statement was put to him, he said his witness statement was incorrect and he did not remember saying that was the first time he was told. He is not sure why he did not mention in his witness statement that he also learnt of his date of birth in 2019. He speculated that perhaps he was not asked. His mother told him his date of birth on every occasion they celebrated his birthday. His parents also wrote it down. He remembered that they did not celebrate again after 2020 because of the instability of the family and his father’s disappearance.
63. I find it difficult to reconcile this conflicting evidence on such a key issue. I do not find it is an evolution in his account. There is a direct conflict in his evidence which, in my judgment has not been reasonably explained. Whilst Ms Ferrin submitted that in oral evidence he gave spontaneous evidence about what age he would have been in the other years given (which I accept), that does not change the fact that he said something completely different in his witness statement. That witness statement was provided in his first language and it is reasonable to expect it was taken in a much less stressful environment, where he had an opportunity to check its accuracy. Indeed, at the hearing, he confirmed that was so.
64. Furthermore, as the respondent noted, when asked how he knew his date of birth at the Brief Enquiry, the applicant gave a different answer. When he was asked how he knows his date of birth he said “my mother told me and based on that they put me in school and based on that they do everything they need to do”. He was then asked about documentation. When he said he did not have any, he was asked again how he knows his date of birth is correct and he said “I knew it when I was just grown up and went to school. I knew that when DOB is recorded”. The question was repeated and he said “my family, my parents told me this is my birthday. And based on that, that is how I knew” [HB805-6]. There is no reference here to being told his date of birth on his 12th birthday and the overriding impression here is that he was told his date of birth (not just his age) when he started school. That is again a different account.
65. As to his siblings, in his first witness statement the applicant said he has an older sister and when he was 14 he remembered his mother telling her she was born in 2005, three years before him. His younger sister was born in 2012 and his younger brother in 2015 (making them 20, 13 and 10 respectively).
66. In his second witness statement, he said he may not have been correct in the first statement about the younger siblings’ years of birth. He knows there are three years’ difference between them all but because he does not know the months of their births, they may have been born in 2011 and 2014.
67. In his oral evidence, the applicant reverted to his original position saying that his elder sister was born in 2005, the younger sister in 2012 and the third in 2015. He said he doubted the year his younger sister was born. He has based his evidence on his mother saying that she was born three years after him.
68. At the very least, this evidence is confused and represents the applicant’s lack of clarity about his siblings’ ages and dates of birth. I think he accepts he does not know their specific dates of birth. As to the impact that has upon his knowledge of his own age, it leads me to question whether his confusion results from him either forgetting or getting confused about what he has said about his own date of birth.
69. As to calendars, in his first witness statement the applicant said that the family celebrated Christian holidays and events and he gave some of those dates both in the Western and Ethiopian calendar (he said in his screening interview that he was Christian and this is not disputed). He learnt both calendars at school and his sister helped him.
70. In his oral evidence, he reiterated his evidence about how he learnt to use the Ethiopian and Western calendars and he said his parents would overhear his conversations about that with his older sister. His mother went to school when she was a child so she was able to assist with homework. I note his evidence about the use of both calendars is corroborated by the article at [HB210]. I do not find there to be any inconsistency in his evidence on this issue.
71. As to when he stopped going to school and his father’s disappearance, in his first witness statement, he said he stopped attending school about a week after his 12th birthday on the day his father disappeared. In his oral evidence, he said that his father disappeared on 29 June 2020 which was the date that the singer Hachalu Hundessa was assassinated and it was also the last day he went to school. When it was put to him that he told the social worker at the Brief Enquiry [HB807] that he left school when he was “12 years and some months” he denied saying that, rather he said it was a ‘few days’ after his 12th birthday. It was also put to him that when he spoke to the psychiatrist earlier this year, he could not remember how old he was when he stopped school (see para. 7.5 at [HB869]). He said that he was not feeling well that day and that might explain why he said that.
72. The above reveals some inconsistency here, not about the date his father disappeared, but how old he was that day and when he left school. As to the reference to months, I do not attach much weight to that because in the assessors notes the full answer he gave to the question, “what age were you when you left school?” he said “12 years and some months”. When asked about the specific month he said “June 2020”. Of course, his claimed date of birth meant he would have turned 12 on the 21 June 2020 so a few days after that would still be in June 2020. That was the more specific part of his answer when pressed so I do not find the reference to “a few months” in the earlier response to do any real damage to his credibility on this issue.
73. Other than the above, the applicant does not identify any other occasion when what he said to the psychiatrist was impacted by him not feeling well. Indeed, otherwise he places significant reliance on that report.
74. As to his physical appearance, in his first witness statement he said he does not think it is surprising that he has hair on his face given his claimed age and had no way of taking care of his appearance when travelling. In oral evidence, he disputed that he accepts he looks older than his claimed age. However, when I asked him about that he said he thinks the harsh weather did have an impact on the appearance of his face. I have already accepted that there may be some impact of his journey on his appearance upon arrival into the UK (see [48] above) and I have accepted that evidence of shaving for this applicant, given he was claiming to be 17 on arrival, is not surprising and not inconsistent with this claimed date of birth (see [37] above).
75. He denied telling his GP he was 18 years old [HB867]. This arose from his GP records, an entry on 29 August 2025 which recorded that the applicant “says he is younger than 22 (18)”. As at that date, he would have been 17 years old on his claimed date of birth. Ms Ferrin submitted no weight should attach to this entry given the lack of detail as to whether an interpreter was used and because such an entry is not one where forensic scrutiny would be expected. There is merit in these submissions even though I would expect a Doctor to want to be clear about their patient’s age. However, in the circumstances, I do not place any real weight on this entry in the medical notes.
76. As to other aspects of his evidence, I note that in his first witness statement the applicant said he felt quite stressed in the age assessment. He said the interpreter was on the phone. It is not clear to me whether he was talking about the Brief Enquiry or the Home Office assessment of his age. He was recorded as saying at the Brief Enquiry that he felt stressed. I do not doubt that the applicant felt stressed at both of the interviews. He was bound to. Nevertheless, that did not appear to radiate through to the assessors in either as they all found him to present in a calm and mature way. To the extent it is relevant, I thought the same of the applicant when he appeared at the hearing, and I do not doubt he felt quite stressed then. Of itself, that is not decisive or even particularly helpful to determine a person’s age. People deal with stress differently. Some show it and some do not. That applies to children and adults.
77. As to his social media, in his oral evidence, he denied that the phone had a Facebook account on it. He did not have an account until he was in the UK. It was set up in August 2025. He said he had help setting up that account and the date of birth stated on the account (3 October 2000) is wrong. He denied telling that person his date of birth, only how old he was. This contrasts with the evidence of the applicant’s solicitor (see [52] above) who said that the applicant had instructed him that he told his friend his year of birth in the Ethiopian calendar and the day and month were chosen at random. I find this a significant inconsistency.
78. In relation to his journey to the UK, in his oral evidence, the applicant explained that he was in prison from the ninth month in 2023 to the fourth month in 2024. He remembers those dates as they are important ones. He left prison in the evening of the 19th. He maintained that he has been consistent that his journey to the UK took 1 year and 4 months and he denied working backwards from the date he entered the UK. He said he was able to keep track of dates because by the time he was in Libya he had a phone. I accept the applicant’s timeline about his journey to the UK has been consistent. In fact, it has not really been challenged. I do not find it directly relevant to the question of the applicant’s likely age.
79. In his first witness statement, the applicant said he does not like his accommodation because everyone is older than him. It reminds him of the time he spent in prison in Ethiopia. I do not find this to indicate, without more, that he was more likely to be a child on arrival. The applicant could be the assessed age and still be surrounded by people older than him given he was placed in adult accommodation.
80. I have referred already to some of the background material, and I note the submission about ST (see [20] above). I accept none of this material undermines the applicant’s account. Given that it is likely to be common knowledge, I do not find it to be of real assistance to determine the applicant’s age.
81. The applicant has been granted asylum. In his screening interview, the applicant reported his imprisonment, claimed he was accused of supporting the Oromo Liberation Front and would be at risk there accordingly. His account did not rely on him being a child and at that time his account would have been evaluated on the basis he was an adult given that was what he was assessed to be. Ms Ferrin submitted that his narrative is very much informed by what happened to his father and his subsequent imprisonment, that he is familiar with the Western calendar and so he has the ability to work to clear timelines in his mind. She submitted that means he should be treated as credible when he talks about his father’s disappearance and events around that time, such as that being when he left school.
82. On the assessed date of birth, the applicant would have been 17 at that time. The evidence about school leaving in Ethiopia at [HB203] shows that by the age of 17 approximately 45% of males were not at school. That means that most were still at school so, even if the applicant were older than claimed, the fact he was at school would still fit with his narrative otherwise.
83. Overall, notwithstanding that the applicant has consistently provided the same claimed date of birth and age, it is clear from what I have set out above, that the applicant has been inconsistent about elements of his account. In fact, I find him to have been inconsistent about most key parts of his evidence about how he knows his date of birth and age (and/or when he found about them). Furthermore, he has been inconsistent about why his Facebook account shows the wrong date of birth.
84. I have evaluated the applicant’s evidence carefully. I have considered it in the round and in light of the Presidential Guidance and the medical evidence. As mentioned earlier, the medical evidence does not expressly say that his particular mental health conditions or past trauma mean he may not be able to give an accurate account. Many of the inconsistencies arise from what the applicant said at the hearing where the reasonable adjustments Dr Rauf recommended were implemented. I am driven to the conclusion that the applicant is an unreliable witness on the issue of how he knows his date of birth and age.
Conclusions
85. Drawing all these factors together, I have considered the evidence in the round as much as possible. I have reminded myself of the applicable legal principles. I do not need to determine the lawfulness of the Brief Enquiry but I do need to determine the weight, if any, to attach. I have done this above. I say, in passing, that the decision not to do a full Merton-compliant age assessment has made the task of the Tribunal harder because the assistance which may otherwise be derived from it is not available.
86. There is no documentary evidence to support the applicant’s account about his age. The evidence about the applicant’s physical appearance, demeanour and behaviour does not significantly assist me in determining the applicant’s age for all the reasons I have given. The applicant was mostly consistent about the rest of his account, such as his journey to the UK and other events in Ethiopia, and they were not really the subject of challenge. There was some background support for what he said on some of the key issues but none of those are decisive for the reasons I have given. The evidence of his social media activity is quite limited. It does not really assist me to determine the applicant’s age although there is some corroboration for his account from the Snapchat account and some inconsistent evidence about the Facebook account. No one else (except the applicant) has offered a counterpoint to the assessors as to his likely age (such as someone who has got to know him here or interacted with him over a period of time).
87. I am left with credibility. I remind myself that credibility is not always material to the question of age but, the focus of any credibility assessment should be the evidence about how a person knows their age. I also remind myself that a person may not tell the truth about some aspects of their account but that does not mean the whole of their account is untrue. However, it is on the key issue of how he knows his age and, particularly, his date of birth that the applicant has been inconsistent and, for the reasons I have given, I do not find that those inconsistencies are likely to have arisen for medical or other reasons (such as those outlined at [57] above). Given the extent of consistent evidence the applicant has provided on other issues, I find it difficult to conclude that the various inconsistencies I have found on the issue of age/date of birth are explained by anything other than the applicant being confused about, or forgetting, what he had said on other occasions, thereby rendering his accounts inconsistent. They undermine his evidence concerning his age and date of birth such that I cannot place any real weight on his evidence about that.
88. I return to the Brief Enquiry, corroborated as it is by the Home Office age assessment. For all the reasons I have given, the Brief Enquiry is far from determinative of the applicant’s age. However, I have attached some (albeit limited) weight to it and to the Home Office initial age enquiry. I find the latter to corroborate the former. When that evidence is combined with the adverse credibility findings I have made about the applicant’s evidence about his age, I am not left in any doubt about whether the applicant is over 18. I do not find I need to extend him the benefit of the doubt about his age. I find it more likely that he was an adult upon arrival into the UK.
89. That leaves the question of what date of birth should be declared having decided the applicant was an adult on arrival into the UK. There is no other evidence as to what the applicant’s date of birth actually is. I remind myself that I am not obliged to choose between either of the party’s position, so I am not obliged to defer to the respondent’s assessment of his date of birth. However, I note that the Home Office allocated the applicant a date of birth which was towards the younger end of the range at which they assessed him as being (22-24). I also find that that date of birth allocated to the applicant appears consistent with the rest of the account the applicant gives and which was not challenged at the hearing. For example, as I explained at [82], it still means his account of finishing school upon his father’s disappearance is consistent with background material of most boys still being at school at 17 years of age. Furthermore, I note that the applicant’s asylum claim was accepted with him being at the assessed age, so it is likely that age was consistent with the factual matrix giving rise to his asylum claim. For those reasons, I find that the allocated date of birth is likely to be one which reflects the truth of the rest of the applicant’s history.
Declaration
90. The applicant was an adult upon arrival into the United Kingdom and his date of birth is 21 June 2003.
~~~~0~~~~