Tribunal decisions

The decision

JR-2026-LON-000286
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

FMR
(Anonymity Order made)
Applicant
versus

DERBY CITY COUNCIL
Respondent

ORDER

BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede

HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard from Ms J Twite of counsel, instructed by Luke & Bridger Law, for the Applicant, and from Mr M Millington of counsel, instructed by Liverpool City Council, for the Respondent at a fact-finding hearing on 6 October 2026

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) For the reasons given in the attached judgment, the Applicant’s claim for judicial review is allowed.

(2) The Respondent’s decision of 6 August 2025 is quashed.

(3) The Applicant’s date of birth is 19 January 2008.

(4) The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s reasonable costs to be assessed if not agreed. The Respondent shall pay 50% of costs on account within 21 days of receiving an itemised bill.

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

Signed: S Kebede

Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede

Dated: 15 October 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): 15 October 2026

Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:

Notification of appeal rights

A decision by the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review is a decision that disposes of proceedings.

A party may appeal against such a decision to the Court of Appeal on a point of law only. Any party who wishes to appeal should apply to the Upper Tribunal for permission, at the hearing at which the decision is given. If no application is made, the Tribunal must nonetheless consider at the hearing whether to give or refuse permission to appeal (rule 44(4B) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008).

If the Tribunal refuses permission, either in response to an application or by virtue of rule 44(4B), then the party wishing to appeal can apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. This must be done by filing an appellant’s notice with the Civil Appeals Office of the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the date the Tribunal’s decision on permission to appeal was sent (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52D 3.3).

Case No: JR-2026-LON-000286
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

Field House
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR

15 October 2026

Before:

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

THE KING
on the application of

FMR
(Anonymity Order made)
Applicant
- and -

DERBY CITY COUNCIL
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms J Twite of Counsel, instructed by Luke & Bridger Law, for the applicant

Mr M Millington of Counsel, instructed by Derby City Council, for the respondent

Hearing date: 6 October 2026

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judge Kebede:

1. The applicant, a national of Syria, asserts that he was born on 19 January 2008 and was thus a child of 17 years of age when he entered the UK on 13 July 2025 and at the time of his age assessment. On his own case he is therefore now 18 years of age.

2. The applicant states that he was born and grew up with his parents and siblings in a town called Kalhadaham in Syria. He did not attend school but he helped at home instead and he looked after the family’s sheep from the age of about 15. He fled Syria on 24 June 2025 together with his family, because the YPG wanted to recruit him to fight for them and his family had no future in Syria because they were very poor. They travelled under the control of agents and he became separated from his family on the journey to the UK.

3. The applicant arrived in the UK by small boat and was apprehended by Home Office officials. He gave his claimed date of age to the immigration officials. Following an initial age assessment by immigration officers on the day of his arrival he was assigned a date of birth of 19 January 2001, making him 24 years of age at that time. He was accordingly treated as an adult and dispersed to adult accommodation in the respondent’s area.

4. On 29 July 2025 the applicant’s solicitors wrote to the respondent requesting that he be age assessed for eligibility for the provision of services under the Children Act 1989 on the basis he claimed to be a child.

5. On 6 August 2025 two social workers employed by the respondent, Eve Moore and Rebecca Chadwick, met with the applicant at his accommodation and conducted a Brief Enquiry of Age assessment. The social workers did not accept the applicant’s claimed age and date of birth and determined that he was an adult. They did not suggest a particular date of birth but considered that he was clearly an adult. As a result of that conclusion there was no referral for a full Merton compliant age assessment.

6. The applicant then filed a judicial review claim on 6 November 2025, sealed on 12 November 2025, challenging the respondent’s decision, on the grounds that: (1) the age assessment decision was wrong as a matter of precedent fact; and (2) the age assessment conducted by the respondent was procedurally unfair and/or failed to comply with applicable guidance and binding caselaw.

7. On 20 January 2026, His Honour Judge Worster granted the applicant permission to apply for judicial review on ground 1 and transferred the matter to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for his date of birth and age to be determined at a fact-ﬁnding hearing. It was noted in his order that the applicant was not pursuing his previous application for interim relief given that he had, on his own case, turned 18 by that date.

8. In accordance with directions from an Upper Tribunal Lawyer on 11 February 2026, the applicant’s solicitor conducted a proportionate social media review on 5 March 2026 in which the applicant’s mobile phone and social media accounts were searched. The applicant was found to have only a Tik Tok account and a WhatsApp account, neither of which revealed anything relevant to his age. Subject access requests were also made to the French and Turkish authorities for information relating to the applicant, but there were no replies to the requests.

9. Following a Case Management Review Hearing on 1 June 2026, directions were issued to the parties by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for the listing of a fact-finding hearing and for the filing and serving of documentary evidence prior to the hearing.

10. Both parties filed and served supporting evidence and skeleton arguments. The parties attended a round table meeting but were unable to settle the proceedings. The matter then came before me for a hearing on 6 October 2026.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

11. The parties agreed a consolidated fact-finding hearing bundle of documents of 483 pages, divided into sections: Tabs 1 to 4 comprising the statement of agreed facts and issues, the respondent’s initial assessment and outcome of the brief enquiry dated 6 August 2025 together with the social workers’ contemporaneous handwritten notes, and an agreed witness template; Tabs 5 to 14 comprising the applicant’s legal pleadings; Tabs 15 to 17 comprising the respondent’s legal pleadings including social care records; Tabs 18 to 22 comprising Court Orders; Tabs 23 to 31 comprising witness statements for the applicant and his witnesses; Tabs 32 and 33 being subject access requests to France and Turkey; Tabs 34 and 35 being the applicant’s disclosures; Tab 36 being the respondent’s disclosures; and Tabs 37 to 39 being expert reports and a notice of grant of legal aid.

12. The following is a summary of the most relevant documents including the age assessment and witness statements, although full and detailed consideration has been given to the entirety of the documentary evidence, whether specifically referred to and summarised in this decision or not.

Respondent’s Documents

Outcome of Brief Enquiry of Age from Derby City Children Social Care, dated 6 August 2025 (pages 7 to 9)

13. As mentioned above, the assessment was conducted by Eve Moore and Rebecca Chadwick, social workers employed by Derby CC, through an interpreter in the Kurdish Sorani language. The applicant’s claimed date of birth was given as 19 January 2008 and the Home Office claimed date of birth as 19 January 2001. The conclusion was that “two social workers with 11 years’ experience believe you are clearly an adult in physical appearance and demeanour. you do not present like any other child that we work with.”

Applicant’s Documents

The Applicant’s First Witness Statement dated 7 November 2025 (page 183)

14. The applicant stated that he was 17 years of age and was born on 19 January 2008. He stated that his father told him his age and date of birth on his 16th birthday. He stated that they always celebrated birthdays in his family by cooking and having a meal together or by baking a cake. When he was very young he complained about his undercooked, homemade birthday cake and refused to celebrate another birthday as he disliked the cake so much, but on his 16th birthday his father brought him a cake and said ‘19th of January is the day that God gave you to us’ and told him that he was turning 16. He was told his age and date of birth using the UK calendar as they used the same calendar in Syria. The applicant said that he did not have any documents such as a passport or birth certificate and he had never had any such documents. He said that it was very common in Syria for children to have no documents as they received them when they were adults. Kurdish people did not commonly have ID as it was mainly Arab people who had ID.

15. The applicant stated that he lived with his parents, his younger brother and his two younger sisters in Syria and he was the oldest sibling. One sister was 13 and the other was 10, and his brother was 6. His family celebrated all their birthdays every year and his siblings received a cake or a meal every year. He did not like the cake his mother made him and so as a result of that he told her that he did not want to have a celebration. He did not attend school and neither did his siblings, and so he could not read or write, but he helped out at home instead. He left Syria as the YPG, a military group which recruited girls and boys of around 17, wanted him to join them and he feared being forced to join them and being forced to do whatever they asked, including killing people. They came to his house when he was out tending to the sheep and told his parents that they had come to take him, and said that they would be back sometime the following week and would take him with them. That was why he and his family fled.

16. The applicant stated that his father sold all their cattle to pay for their journey and they left their house in the evening and walked for hours until early morning when they met with the agent his father had contacted. The agent put them in a lorry which took them to Turkey and they were placed in a house in Turkey for seven days, waiting for others to join them. Once there were 10 of them they continued on their journey, again in a lorry to an unknown country where they were split into two groups and he was separated from the rest of his family. They travelled to the jungle and were then put in a dinghy. He did not find his family again. The applicant stated that the British police rescued them from the middle of the sea and took them somewhere where they were separated into groups and he was questioned about his age. He was exhausted during his screening interview as he had not slept for days and so may have given wrong answers to some of the questions.

17. The applicant stated that the age assessment on 6 August 2025 lasted for one session of about half an hour, when the two social workers came to visit him and he was given an interpreter over the phone. He asked for a Kurmanji interpreter but was not given one and did not understand what was being said. He was scared and confused after the interview and did not know what was happening. The applicant said that he was very unhappy in his accommodation as everyone was older than him and they smoked and did drugs and would swear at him and harass him. He felt uncomfortable, unsafe and afraid. He had no support other than from one man who spoke Kurdish Kurmanji. He did not attend college but attended a local charity club twice a week where he got to play games and sometimes had English lessons. He would have liked to attend a college. He did not have self-care skills and did not know how to cook or how to clean or look after himself.

The Applicant’s Second Witness Statement dated 16 December 2025 (page 194)

18. The applicant stated that he had always known his age as his father told him every year what age he was. His age would be mentioned throughout the year for various reasons, such as reminding him that he was a certain age and so had responsibilities. He did not remember the very first time that he was told his age. In 2024, the day he turned 16 years old, his father told him that that was the day he was born and it was at that time that he learned that 19 January 2008 was his date of birth. The applicant said that, whilst he may have been told the date before, he had never paid much attention, but when he turned 16 he understood more of what the calendar was and made a point to remember his date of birth. He said that they would have a small family celebration when it was someone’s birthday in the family and do small things like bake a cake. He did not know the dates of birth of his siblings, but only knew that they were 13, 10 and 6 years old, as they would also be told on their birthdays and he would overhear.

The Applicant’s Third Witness Statement dated 24 July 2026 (page 202)

19. The applicant stated that he was a Maktoum Kurd, as was his whole family, which meant that they were unregistered and had no paperwork. He had known his whole life that he was a Maktoum Kurd, as his father would often tell him, although he could not remember how old he was when he told him that. He was aware that he was unable to travel to other cities as they needed to pass checkpoints and would be asked for ID cards and if they were registered or unregistered. If they found out he was a young Maktoum boy they may try to take him to join the military.

First Witness Statement of Coral McDonnell dated 6 April 2026 (page 198)

20. Coral McDonnell explained that she had been the safeguarding lead and a trustee of Derbyshire Refugee Solidarity (DRS) since 2021 and had previously worked as a senior social worker with 32 years’ experience of supporting cared for children and young people. She stated that she had extensive experience of supporting individuals seeking asylum, including unaccompanied young people. She first became aware of the applicant on 2 October 2025 when he was brought to her attention as an unaccompanied young person and he told her that Derby City Children’s Services had not accepted his date of birth. Ms McDonnell stated that in her professional opinion the age assessment lacked details about the applicant’s appearance and presentation and did not explain what aspects of his physical appearance led them to conclude that he was an adult. She said that the applicant had attended DRS regularly and she had got to know him over the past six weeks as he attended twice a week, and she had spent two to three hours with him at each session. She found it difficult to assess his age on his physical appearance, but his facial features presented as those of a young person and there was little evidence of regular shaving and room for further development of facial hair. Ms McDonnell stated that it was the applicant’s social and emotional presentation that made her feel that he was a child, as he lacked confidence in large groups and presented as worried and insecure and would not join in activities without being prompted. He would sit alone and not show any initiative to join in unless prompted.

21. Ms McDonnell stated that at the first session the applicant attended he was inappropriately dressed for the weather and was wearing flipflops and no coat. He did not ask for help but they provided him with the clothing he needed. She doubted that he would be able to meet his own needs without an adult regularly checking on him. He was heavily reliant on others to advocate for him and had limited use of English. Ms McDonnell stated that in her professional opinion the applicant needed support and guidance from trustworthy adults who could nurture him through to adulthood and she did not believe that he was coping well in his current accommodation due to his vulnerability and inability to advocate for himself and meet his own needs.

Second Witness Statement of Coral McDonnell dated 21 May 2026 (page 200)

22. Ms McDonnell explained that her previous statement was based upon a letter of support written earlier in November 2025 when the applicant was 17 years of age, and that by the time it was transposed into a statement he was actually 18 years of age. She stated that since her original letter of support she had remained in regular contact with the applicant through DRS and had continued to observe and interact with him. She stated that in her professional opinion, the applicant needed support and guidance from trustworthy adults and she did not believe that he was coping well in his current accommodation due to his vulnerability and inability to advocate for himself and meet his own needs. As a result of having had limited access to education and opportunities to develop independent life skills he required ongoing support with day-to-day routines and navigating everyday responsibilities, such as shopping, cooking and looking after his appearance. He had shown initiative and resilience by proactively seeking support from local charities and community organisations since he moved to Beeston, but he remained heavily reliant on others to advocate on his behalf, which increased his vulnerability and placed him at risk of exploitation or bad advice. Ms McDonnell stated that the applicant struggled to cope when problems were not resolved quickly and could become highly anxious or panicked when faced with uncertainty or lack of immediate solutions, and that he would benefit from consistent support, reassurance, and guidance to help him manage daily life safely and independently.

Expert report of Dr Chloe Ward, dated 23 July 2026 (page 417)

23. Dr Ward, in her psychological report, confirmed that she had interviewed and assessed the applicant on 6 May 2026 by Zoom. She confirmed that he was taking physical health medication for back pain but no psychiatric medication and that there was no evidence of any specific current mental health concerns raised, although he reported suffering from anxiety and depression and had had suicidal thoughts since coming to the UK. Dr Ward noted that, with regard to the applicant’s ability to provide a credible, complete and consistent testimony, he presented with poor memory recall and concentration focus which may be impacted by his current mental state or through past traumatic experiences, and opined that his mental state should be taken into consideration regarding his ability to provide a credible, complete and consistent testimony. With regard to the applicant’s age, Dr Ward opined that for an 18-year-old male, which was his claimed age, he presented with a lower developmental age than his claimed chronological age. She said that her conclusions were drawn from a lack of daily life skills, a lack of decision-making and a lack of independence for this age group, but observed that those factors may correlate with a lack of life experiences and education, although developmentally from a psychological perspective there were factors missing which would be expected for an 18-year-old male.

Expert report of Dr Alan George, dated 22 July 2026 (page 455)

24. Dr George confirmed that Maktoumeen Syrian Kurds did not hold even the special identity cards issued to the Ajnabi, or ‘foreigner’ category of stateless Kurd. He noted that the case documentation did not identify the applicant as a maktoum Kurd but he considered that he might well be and, on questioning, he confirmed that he was. Dr George said that, as a general statement of the situation in Syria as a whole, the applicant’s statement that it is ‘very common in Syria for children to have no documents as you received them when you are an adult’, was not accurate. However, from the perspective of a maktoum Kurd from a small village who never attended school, the statement was understandable, and was accurate with regard to maktoum children. He stated further that, whilst the formal age of conscription in the YPG was 18, there was clear evidence from reputable sources that the YPG had engaged in forcible recruitment of minors.

THE HEARING: ORAL EVIDENCE

Coral McDonnell

25. It was agreed by both parties that Ms McDonnell could give her evidence first since the Kurdish Kurmanji interpreter was not able to join the hearing until 11am.

26. Ms McDonnell adopted her statements as her evidence in chief. She confirmed that she had continued to see the applicant since her last statement of May 2026 but that contact was not as regular as he had moved out of the area. She saw him last Saturday. He had continued to attend the charity in Derby, but only every three to four weeks now. Otherwise nothing had changed since her last statement. She still had no doubt about his age. He had continued to claim the same age. When asked why, in her first statement, she stated that she had asked the applicant to attend DRS regularly and make himself known to her, Ms McDonnell said that that was so that she could keep a close eye on him as he had no support at his accommodation and she was concerned about him. She wanted to check on him.

27. Ms McDonnell was then cross-examined by Mr Millington. She confirmed that she met the applicant through her work for the DRS. She explained that DRS was a charity which had been going for 11 years and which supported asylum seekers and refugees housed in Derby and Derbyshire. They provided education, English lessons, music and access to sport and they signposted to other charities. They provided a social space. She was the safeguarding lead. 100 to 150 people attended twice a week. When asked about the ages of the attendees, Ms McDonnell said that they tended to be adults mostly, but there were also some young people who were being looked after by the local authority and also some new people who had made them aware that they were mis-aged at the border. They would refer those people on to the local authority to be age assessed as they did not do age assessments themselves. When asked by Mr Millington what she meant when she said in her statement that she asked the applicant to attend, Ms McDonnell said that she wanted to support him and had been made aware that he was claiming to have been mis-aged. She wanted to do a referral to the local authorities, but only if she believed him. Ms McDonnell said that she had 32 years’ experience as a social worker. She would have to go on a number of factors and wanted to be confident that she was doing a referral in good faith and believed the applicant to be the age he claimed.

28. Mr Millington asked Ms McDonnell if it was fair to say that she advocated on behalf of asylum seekers in their best interests and she replied that that depended on the circumstances. The charity was there to help and signpost to statutory organisations which dealt with asylum-seekers. Ms McDonnell agreed that it was not her role to establish if someone was lying and to test their credibility as that would conflict with her role. She would act if she thought they were a young person. The applicant had made little progress compared to other young adults in their organisation and he was very limited and needed a lot of support. Mr Millington suggested to Ms McDonnell that her evidence in both her statements, that the applicant was unwavering in his claim that he was not an adult, was inconsistent with the fact that by the date of those statements he had turned 18 and was therefore an adult. Ms McDonnell replied that that evidence was taken before she signed the statements and was taken from a letter she had written in 2025. She first saw the applicant in October 2025 shortly after he had been brought to Derby. She agreed that he was 17 years and 10 months of age at that time. When asked by Mr Millington if there was a difference between someone of 17 years and 10 months of age and someone of 18 years, Ms McDonnell said that there was not, but that it depended on the case. In the applicant’s case his presentation had remained the same.

29. Mr Millington referred Ms McDonnell to [6] of her first statement where she stated that it was the applicant’s social and emotional presentation that made her feel that he was a child. He asked her if that could not also apply to someone from a different country and culture who did not speak the language, to which she responded not in her experience, as asylum seekers were usually quick to build social contacts such as on their journey to the UK whereas the applicant was not. Mr Millington asked Ms McDonnell if the hardship and instability the applicant had experienced in his life could not have affected his emotional presentation irrespective of his age. She replied that the applicant was significantly different to others who came from similar backgrounds in that he lacked any independent skills and needed significant support whereas other asylum seekers just needed to be pointed in the right direction and they would then be able to access support for themselves. She believed that that was unique and it was a clear indication of his age, as adults behaved very differently. Mr Millington asked Ms McDonnell if the applicant’s lack of education and the fact that he grew up in a rural area could have affected the way in which he presented. She replied that she did not believe that those experiences in his case had impacted on his social presentation and that he was very different to other asylum seekers as other asylum seekers she had come across from rural backgrounds with no education acted very differently and had been able to build their own networks. Ms McDonnell accepted that the applicant had been an adult for most of the time she had known him, having turned 18 in January 2026 by his own account, but she said that he had missed out on a lot of support that he would have had if his age had been accepted and therefore his progress was very slow.

30. When re-examined by Ms Twite, Ms McDonnell said that there was nothing about the applicant’s physical appearance that made her think he was older than claimed. She said that he had consistently given the same account of his age. Had his age been accepted he could have started college. His progress had been significantly impacted by the failure to accept his age. When asked if it ever occurred to her that the applicant was lying, Ms McDonnell said that she thought of that all the time but she used her 32 years of experience and did not think that he even had the capacity to lie as he was extremely naïve.

The Applicant

31. The applicant was treated as a vulnerable witness and reasonable adjustments were made to the extent requested. He was offered breaks but was content to proceed without a break. Mr Millington assisted the applicant in accessing documents when those were referred to throughout the proceedings.

32. The applicant adopted his statements as his evidence in chief, subject to some amendments of errors he had noted when a friend read the statements back to him. He said that there were errors in the spellings of names and places. Further, it was not the case that all Kurdish people did not have documents, as some people had them and some did not. He also said that there was an error in the evidence recorded as to when he stopped in Turkey as it was at night on the second day, and not on the third day. There was also an error in the statement that they did not celebrate religious occasions in the Kurdish parts of Syria, as they celebrated Newroz and Eid. They also celebrated birthdays and in his house they would have a meal and a cake, but no party. They would each have their own individual birthday celebration.

33. The applicant was then cross-examined by Mr Millington. He said that he grew up in Syria with his parents, brother and two sisters. None of them had a passport or government identity card. He did not attend school and could not read or write in any language. He used to work with his family’s livestock and goats, letting them out and watching them, and he did that from the age of 15. Had he stayed in Syria he would have continued to do that job as there no other jobs he could do. The applicant, when asked, said he learned about calendars when here in the UK, although he had some knowledge when in Syria. He knew that a year had 12 months and he knew the first, second and third months. He did not know whether November or February came first. His parents used to refer to dates and months when he was growing up in Syria, such as when he turned 16 his father told him that 19 January 2008 was the date he was born. He knew that the Kurdish New Year, Newroz, was on 20 March, and that people would make fires on that day and go out for picnics on 21 March. He did not really do that with his family as they would mostly stay at home. They did not have a physical calendar at home. His parents had mobile phones but he and his siblings did not. Mr Millington asked the applicant if his family celebrated Eid and he replied that they did.

34. The applicant said that he could remember his family celebrating birthdays before his 16th birthday. He remembered when he was little his mother baked a cake which was not fully baked and so he did not want cake any more after that on his birthday. He did not want to celebrate his birthday after that, but when he was 16 his father brought a cake and told him that he was born on that day. When asked by Mr Millington if he knew why his father told him his date of birth on his 16th birthday, the applicant said that his father reminded him of his age every year and if he made a mistake his father would tell him his age and say that he was responsible for his actions now. His father told him on his 16th birthday that 19 January 2008 was the date that god brought him into this world. He had not forgotten the date since then. He did not know his date of birth before then. He believed that his father may have mentioned the date many times previously but he had not understood or did not care as it was not a big deal for him. He did not know his siblings’ dates of birth although he knew their ages. He had a rough idea of his parents’ ages as he had been looking for them through the Red Cross.

35. When Mr Millington asked the applicant about the questions put to him by the Home Office staff on his arrival here, the applicant said that he did not remember everything as he was very tired and afraid as he had just got off the boat and had been in the jungle for a night previously and had not slept. When Mr Millington put to the applicant that he had said to the Home Office that his mother and father had told him his date of birth on the way here before they were separated, he said that he did not know and could not remember what happened. When Mr Millington put to him that he had not been told the date 19 January 2008 in Syria but had been told to say that during his journey to the UK, the applicant said that was not the case and that no one on the journey told him to give that date of birth. When asked about the meeting with the two social workers in August 2025, the applicant said that he had not understood anything other than “good day” in Kurdish, as they had not given him a Kurmanji interpreter. The interpreter left after half an hour and then the two ladies left. The ladies asked him some questions and he answered but he did not know how the interpreter had interpreted his words as he did not understand him fully. The applicant confirmed that he had given an accurate account to his solicitors for his statements.

THE HEARING: SUBMISSIONS

36. Both parties had produced skeleton arguments prior to the hearing and both relied on their skeleton arguments.

The Respondent

37. Mr Millington addressed the three parts of the evidence which the applicant relied upon in support of his case, namely his own account, Dr Ward’s observations on his developmental age presentation and Ms McDonnell’s observations on his social and emotional presentation. With regard to the applicant’s own account, Mr Millington made three submissions. Firstly that the account was thin on the question of how the applicant knew his date of birth and age: there was no corroborative evidence, the applicant had never seen any evidence of his age, he had not attended school or work in which his age or date of birth was relevant, and he had not given any particular explanation as to why his father told him his date of birth on his 16th birthday. Secondly, the applicant’s account of how he knew his date of birth was inconsistent and thus lacking in credibility, as he informed the Home Office on arrival that he was told the date by his parents on his journey to the UK, yet in his first statement he said that he learned his age and date of birth on his 16th birthday, and in his second statement he said that he had always known his age and was told every year and throughout the year. Thirdly, the account lacked plausibility and credibility, as the fact that he did not know his siblings’ dates of birth undermined the suggestion that the dates were important, it was not clear why not liking his cake one year would affect him routinely celebrating his birthday, there was no reason given as to why his father told him his date of birth when he did, he only learned about calendars when in the UK and was still unaware of the order of months, he had had no need to know his date of birth in the context of school or work or future plans, and there was therefore no functional relevance of knowing his date of birth aside from his documentation in the UK. Mr Millington submitted further that the applicant’s oral evidence appeared rehearsed and the language replicated what was in his statements, all of which called into question the authenticity of the evidence of how he knew his age and date of birth.

38. With regard to the evidence of Dr Ward, Mr Millington submitted that whilst she considered that the applicant presented with a lower developmental age than his claimed chronological age, that observation should be accorded limited weight. That was because the opportunity she had to observe the applicant’s life skills and critical thinking was limited to a short video interview, and because she acknowledged herself that his core daily living skills and deficiencies could be due to a lack of education and the lifestyle differences. Furthermore Dr Ward herself considered that his early life trauma had significantly impacted upon age perception. As for the evidence of Ms McDonnell, Mr Millington submitted that it was relevant that she had met the applicant only in the context of her role for the DRS and that she had acknowledged herself that it was contrary to her role to question his account or to proactively work out if he was lying. He submitted that the applicant had already been 18 years of age for some months at the time of her statements and she acknowledged herself that she could not readily discern a difference between 17 and 18 years of age. Ms McDonnell had said that the applicant’s presentation was unique and his presentation was therefore not a conclusive indication that he was the age she believed. Mr Millington submitted that a young adult without education could also present as socially withdrawn in a country where he lacked a social network. Mr Millington relied on the case of R (ES) v London Borough of Hounslow [2012] UKUT 00138 (IAC) in submitting that the context in which Ms McDonnell had met the applicant was relevant.

39. Mr Millington submitted that, given that the applicant’s account was not reliable, the date of birth he had provided should not be taken as a starting point, but all the evidence should be considered. He submitted that two social workers experienced in assessing age thought the applicant was clearly an adult and that view was consistent with the view of the two Home Office officials who met him on arrival. Mr Millington submitted that whilst caution must be given to reaching a conclusion on the basis of appearance and demeanour, such indicators could still be relied upon. He asked that the social workers’ age assessment therefore be maintained and that the Tribunal should conclude that the applicant was an adult on the date of the assessment. I asked Mr Millington which date of birth he wanted me to declare, given that the two social workers did not give a particular date. He told me that the respondent had not adopted the Home Office date of birth and that I should conclude that the applicant was an adult on the date of the assessment. He submitted that I was not required to find an actual date of birth.

The Applicant

40. Ms Twite submitted that the Tribunal had to allocate a date of birth to the applicant so that he could function in society. If the respondent said that he was an adult but was not sure how old he was, how much reliance could be placed on the age assessment. She submitted that the applicant was adamant that he knew his age and date of birth and that that should be accepted. His account had been broadly consistent. His evidence was credible and plausible. There was very little from the respondent to challenge his claimed age. Ms McDonnell’s evidence should have been given significant weight as she knew him best. Ms Twite went on to address the three areas of evidence, as referred to by Mr Millington. With regard to the applicant’s own account, she submitted that there was no reason to disbelieve him and it was clear that he cared about the accuracy of his account, given the amendments he had been keen to make at the beginning of the hearing. His account of how he came to know of his age and date of birth was plausible. No weight should be given to the record of the evidence in the Home Office interview as there was no full record and the interview took place a few hours after the applicant had arrived here. There was no inconsistency between the applicant’s evidence in his first and second statements. Ms Twite relied upon the case of MVN v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC 1942 at [28] in relation to relevant considerations in assessing credibility and at [31] in relation to the compelling nature of the evidence of someone who had spent more time with the applicant. She also relied upon R (on the application of AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 in that regard.

41. With regard to the two expert reports, Ms Twite submitted that they were not the main plank of the case but that they assisted the Tribunal in regard to credibility as they supported the applicant’s account. The country expert report supported his account in terms of a lack of documentation and attempts to recruit him, and Dr Ward’s account was important in so far as it stressed the importance of giving allowances to asylum seekers in providing a coherent account. She relied in particular upon paragraph 23.9 of Dr Ward’s report where she referred to the applicant’s poor memory. Ms Twite submitted that the short form age assessment made no issue about the applicant’s credibility and did not refer to any inconsistencies in his account, whereas Ms McDonnell’s evidence supported his credibility. With regard to the age assessment, Ms Twite submitted that it was very brief and that the applicant was asked very few questions. She relied on the case of MVN in submitting that the Tribunal needed to know the basis for the decision, yet we had no idea why the age assessors found the applicant to be an adult other than his appearance and demeanour. She submitted that that was an unreliable basis to reach a conclusion, particularly where an applicant fell within the grey area of late teens/ early 20s. Ms Twite submitted that it was not accepted that the age assessment was procedurally fair and she relied upon the case of HAM, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 in that respect. She asked that little weight be given to the age assessment, and to the Home Office assessment which was based purely on appearance and demeanour and failed to consider the impact of tiredness and exhaustion.

42. As for the evidence of Ms McDonnell, Ms Twite submitted that, unlike the age assessors, she had spent a significant amount of time with the applicant and she was the only one who had. Her evidence was significant, in line with the findings in MVN. Her evidence was that, whilst it was not her job to challenge ages, she was always mindful of whether someone was lying and that she often did not believe asylum seekers who were challenging their age assessment, and wanted to ensure that any referral she made to the local authority was in good faith. Ms Twite submitted that Ms McDonnell was very professional and was being realistic in stating that no one could actually determine precise age. Ms Twite accepted that Ms McDonnell’s evidence was not determinative but was weighty evidence. She specifically rejected the suggestion that the applicant’s behaviour in terms of his age could be put down to cultural experiences and she made it clear that she had taken cultural experiences into account and had come to an informed opinion.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

43. The legislative framework within which this case is to be considered is well-established and there was no disagreement between the parties on this. It is not, therefore necessary to set out relevant authorities at length. In brief, therefore, I set out the following principles.

44. Where the age assessment of the local authority is in dispute, it is for the court or Tribunal to reach its own assessment of age, as a matter of fact (R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council) [2009] UKSC 8).

45. The various authorities make it clear that there is no burden of proof in such cases. In R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590 the Court held that the application of a legal burden of proof was an incorrect approach to adopt:

“[23] …Where the issue is whether the claimant is a child for the purposes of the Children Act it seems to me that the application of a legal burden is not the correct approach. There is no hurdle which the claimant must overcome. The court will decide whether, on a balance of probability, the claimant was or was not at the material time a child. The court will not ask whether the local authority has established on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was an adult; nor will it ask whether the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that he is a child”.

46. In R (on the application of AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 the Tribunal made general observations about the impact of evidence of various sorts and from various sources, concluding that

“[15] …almost all evidence of physical characteristics is likely to be of very limited value”,

“[19] … So far as demeanour is concerned, it seems to us that there may be value to be obtained from observations of demeanour and interaction with others made over a long period of time by those who have opportunity to observe an individual going about his ordinary life. But we find it difficult to see that any useful observations of demeanour or social interaction or maturity can be made in the course of a short interview between an individual and a strange adult”

and

“[20] The asserted expertise of a social worker conducting an interview is not in our judgement sufficient to counteract those difficulties. A person such as a teacher or even a family member, who can point to consistent attitudes, and a number of supporting instances over a considerable period of time, is likely to carry weight that observations made in the artificial surroundings of an interview cannot carry.”

47. At [21] of MVN v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC 1942, Picken J referred to the ADCS Age Assessment Guidance of October 2015:

“The Merton guidelines have also been reflected in the 'Practice Guidelines on Assessing Age' as developed for local authorities by the London Boroughs of Hillingdon and Croydon. That document sets out the relevant principles, as helpfully summarised by Miss Luh in her opening skeleton argument, without objection from Miss Screeche-Powell, as follows:

(1) The assessment must be a holistic one and must start with an open mind, with no imposition on the child to prove his age to the assessing social workers.

(2) Physical appearance and demeanour are notoriously unreliable factors not determinative of age.

(3) Cultural, ethnic and racial context of the young person being assessed must be considered as these may reflect in their presentation as well as their descriptions of their lives.

(4) General credibility is not to be determinative of age. It is more likely that a young person who tells a consistent account of his life which supports his claimed age will be the age he claims to be. Conversely, young people may lie for reasons unrelated to age but related to their claims for protection or the reasons they had to leave their country of origin.

(5) The child should be afforded the benefit of the doubt where evidence can tip one way or the other.”

and went on to say at [27] that:

“It would, therefore, appear that the primary focus is on the credibility of the person's evidence concerning his or her age, but that it is permissible to have regard to credibility more generally provided that, in looking at credibility more generally, the primary focus to which I have referred is not forgotten.”

48. With regard to the requirements for a proper and fair age assessment process, Mr Justice Swift, in the case of HAM, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924, referred to the leading case in age assessment, B, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689, and said as follows:

“10. Overall, several important matters can be taken from the judgment in Merton. First, when it is necessary to determine whether a person is a child (i.e. under 18 years old) for the purposes of the 1989 Act, there is no burden of proof, and so no assumption either way. Rather, the assessment required must be undertaken on its own terms. Second, the assessment decision must be made based on reasonable enquiry – the local authority must take the steps reasonable in the case in hand to obtain the information needed to take the decision it is required to take. What this requires will depend on the circumstances of the case. Stanley Burnton J recognised that there may be occasions when a decision that meets the requirement for fairness can be taken based on evidence of appearance and demeanour alone (see his judgment at paragraph 27). However, he also recognised that such occasions are likely to be rare, and that when the person being assessed might appear to be of an age close to 18 (say between 16-20), fairness might ordinarily require the decision-maker to make further enquiries, either through an interview with the person to obtain his history, or otherwise (see his judgment at paragraph 28).

11. Third, when such an interview or other form of enquiry was undertaken it must be undertaken fairly. One matter was emphasised. If the person's credibility was an issue that should be made clear and should be dealt with head on during the investigation process. In cases where the local authority was minded to conclude the person claiming to be a child was lying, that provisional view and the reasons for it should be explained to him and he should have an opportunity to respond before a final decision was taken.

12. Fourth, that although there may be a range of things that a public authority might do to ensure the procedure followed was fair, those matters would not be requirements of fairness in every case. This category included matters such as whether the assessment be conducted by one social worker or two; whether a medical opinion or information from other professionals such as resident social workers or teachers may be appropriate; whether the assessment should be completed during a single interview or be undertaken over a more extended period; whether there should be verbatim notes of interviews; whether when an interpreter was required it was necessary for him to be present in person rather than by phone or video call.

13. The judgment in Merton did not rule out the possibility that on the facts of other cases some or other of these measures might be requirements of fairness. However, it is equally clear that Stanley Burnton J did not equate the legal requirement for any fair procedure with any sort of checklist. Fairness in this context, as in any other, is a matter of substance not simple form.”

49. As to the nature of the age assessment itself, Dexter Dias KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge said in R (MAA) v London Borough of Hounslow [2024] EWHC 1894 (Admin) as follows:

“30. … the law is plain: in cases where the age is obviously beyond the band of doubt, it being clear that the person is significantly beyond the age of a child, the facts of the case do not justify a more extensive assessment process.”

50. With regard to the weight to be given to the age assessment, Blake J said in R (NA) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] EWHC 2357 (Admin) at §44:

“Other agencies of the state are unlikely to have the same experience of age assessment as social workers who are trained in the necessary techniques and have substantial experience in applying them. As a matter of practice, therefore, although not of law, a social worker assessment of the precise age of a child may well prove to be the decisive assessment on which other agencies of the state and private persons do, and are entitled to, rely in performing their duties.”

DISCUSSION

The Applicant’s age: the Precedent Fact issue.

51. This is a case where the applicant claims to know his exact age and date of birth but has not been able to produce any documents showing either, such as a passport, identity card or birth certificate, and claims in addition never to have owned or seen any such documents. He relies instead upon his own account of how he knows his age and date of birth together with the supporting testimony of one witness, Ms Coral McDonnell, the safeguarding lead and a trustee of Derbyshire Refugee Solidarity (DRS).

52. The focus, in the absence of documentary evidence, is therefore upon credibility, particularly the credibility of the applicant's evidence concerning his age, and I have due regard to the principles outlined in MVN v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC 1942, at [21(4)], and extracted above in that respect. I also take account of the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No. 2 of 2010: Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Appellant Guidance and give due allowance for the fact that many child asylum seekers will have problems in presenting a coherent account of their personal history and travel to this country.

53. As a starting point, the applicant’s account of having never had any identity documents is consistent with the country background information as set out in the country expert report from Dr George and with his own account of being a Maktoum Kurd. I refer in particular to [49] of Dr George’s report in that respect. There is accordingly nothing in the applicant’s account of a lack of documentation which could be taken as undermining his credibility.

54. Turning, therefore, to the only available evidence in relation to the applicant’s age, I start with his own account. The applicant’s case is somewhat unusual in that there are no contextual landmarks such as school or employment against which some sort of a timeline could be formed to assist in assessing age and accordingly, as Mr Millington submitted, there is very little upon which to base a decision.

55. The applicant claims that it was on his 16th birthday that his father decided to tell him his date of birth. However he has not been able to offer any explanation or reason for his father deciding to do so at that time. His evidence was that he was not familiar with calendars or how the months in a year were chronologically ordered and, as Mr Millington submitted, there appears to have been no functional relevance of him knowing his date of birth at the time. It cannot be explained by his birthday being shortly before his journey to the UK, when in fact he left Syria after his 17th birthday, according to his account of his age. In the circumstances I found his account of what happened on his 16th birthday and how it differed to other birthdays to be rather difficult to accept. Further, like Mr Millington, I did not consider that there was any credible explanation as to why not liking a cake baked by his mother one year would be a reason for him not to celebrate any other birthdays. His account in that respect seemed to me to be somewhat contrived. It was also inconsistent with the account he gave when first questioned by the Home Office on 13 July 2025, where he stated that his parents told him his date of birth on the journey to the UK. Whilst I fully acknowledge the limitations of that interview, given that he had just arrived in the UK after a long, arduous and no doubt terrifying journey, it nevertheless seems relevant that he chose to explain his knowledge of his date of birth as he did at that time. In the circumstances I do not accept that the applicant’s account of how he came to know his date of birth is a reliable one. I consider it more likely that he was given that date of birth on his journey to the UK and was told to use that date of birth when encountered by any authorities.

56. Nevertheless, and despite that finding, I find nothing implausible in the applicant’s account of being aware of his age. I do not consider that the above concerns necessarily undermine his credibility to that extent. It is entirely possible that he was provided with a date of birth by the agents which was consistent with his actual age on his journey to the UK, albeit not being his actual date of birth. The account he gave of being aware of his age every year and of his father reminding him of his responsibilities as he became older had the ring of truth and is consistent with him also knowing his siblings’ ages but not their dates of birth. It is also consistent with his account of why he left Syria, namely to avoid being forced to fight for the YPG, which is in turn supported by the country expert evidence. At [50] to [52] of his report, Dr George refers to compulsory conscription for men from age 18, but then goes on to refer to reports of forcible recruitment of minors, as consistent with the applicant’s own evidence. I accept that that could also support an account of the applicant being a few months older than claimed, but consider it to be one aspect of the overall evidence which is potentially supportive of his claim.

57. The most persuasive evidence before me is that of Ms McDonnell. She came across as being very competent and professional and I found her to be a particularly informative and helpful witness. She previously worked as a senior social worker and has 32 years of experience of supporting asylum seekers and refugees including unaccompanied young people. Although she made clear that her role did not involve assessing age as such, her wealth of experience clearly makes her well-placed to provide a reliable and informed opinion of the applicant’s age. In contrast to the two social workers who spent a short amount of time with the applicant (and I shall address their report later), Ms McDonnell has spent a considerable amount of time with him and has observed him at length over a period of several months and seen him interact with other asylum seekers and refugees. She explained in her oral testimony that she asked the applicant to attend DRS regularly as she had become aware of him and was concerned about him since he lacked support and, in her view, required a significant amount of support.

58. In her statement Ms McDonnell addressed the applicant’s physical appearance which she considered to be that of a young person consistent with his age, albeit accepting that it was difficult to assess age at that stage of life i.e. teenager/ young adult. She stated that what made her feel most that he was a child was his social and emotional presentation, as she described in detail at [6] of her first statement. When questioned further about that at the hearing, she rejected Mr Millington’s suggestion that such a presentation could be accounted for by the applicant being in a different country and not speaking the language, and she rejected his suggestion that the effect of experiences of hardship and instability could affect emotional presentation on a 25 year old just as much as a 17 year old. In so doing, Ms McDonnell gave full reasons for her opinion, explaining that older asylum seekers were usually quick to build social contacts whereas the applicant was not, and that the applicant had no independent skills and needed significant support whereas older asylum seekers could access support for themselves when pointed in the right direction. She said that she had come across other asylum seekers from rural backgrounds who had no education but they acted very differently to the applicant and were able to build their own networks, which again she found to be an indication of his younger age.

59. Mr Millington submitted that Ms McDonnell’s evidence did not carry weight given that she knew the applicant in the particular context of her work and that it was not her role to question his account or to consider if he was lying, whereas the two social workers provided an objective assessment. Whilst I agree that that is a significant and relevant consideration, and I have had regard to the observations in R (ES) v London Borough of Hounslow [2012] UKUT 00138 at [58] (quoted at [23] of Mr Millington’s skeleton argument) in that respect, I was nevertheless persuaded by Ms McDonnell’s evidence that when making a referral to the local authority for a full age assessment, as she did in cases of ‘mis-aged’ applicants, she needed to be confident that she was doing that in good faith. As such she had needed to be satisfied that the applicant was 17 years of age, as he claimed to be at that time, when she made a referral. It was clear from that evidence, therefore, that Ms McDonnell did not simply accept age to be as claimed but had to make some sort of assessment for her own satisfaction and credibility, albeit that it was not an official part of her role. To that extent I accept that her assessment was not purely subjective.

60. It is relevant also to consider that Ms McDonnell’s conclusions are supported by the expert report from Dr Ward, in that Dr Ward, at paragraph 23.14 of her report, refers to her opinion of the applicant presenting with a lower developmental age than his claimed chronological age. That is based on similar observations as made by Ms McDonnell, namely his lack of daily life skills and lack of decision-making and independence. Although Dr Ward acknowledged that the applicant’s early life experiences and lack of education may have impacted upon his developmental age, that can be taken together with Ms McDonnell’s experiences, as already discussed, with older asylum seekers who had undergone similar life experiences.

61. In the circumstances I do attach considerable weight to Ms McDonnell’s evidence. That is entirely consistent with the observations made by the Tribunal in AM, R (on the application of) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 118 at [20], as quoted at [46] above: “A person such as a teacher or even a family member, who can point to consistent attitudes, and a number of supporting instances over a considerable period of time, is likely to carry weight that observations made in the artificial surroundings of an interview cannot carry.” It is particularly relevant considering the circumstances under which the brief enquiry took place, and I therefore turn next to that assessment.

62. Other than referring to the two social workers as being experienced in age assessment and to their conclusion on the applicant’s age being consistent with that of the two Home Office officials who made the earlier assessment, Mr Millington had little to say about the brief enquiry. He accepted that caution had to be exercised in reaching conclusions based upon appearance and demeanour but asked me to accept the conclusions of the report nevertheless. However I do not consider that any significant weight can be attached to that report. The notes of the social workers confirm the applicant’s account that a Kurmanji interpreter was not used and, as such, he may not have been able to understand and express himself as well as through his own language/dialect of Kurdish. Having said that, I do not accept his claim not to have understood anything, as he clearly managed to answer the questions put to him. In any event nothing material arises from that. It is relevant, however, that the report refers only to the applicant’s physical appearance and demeanour in concluding that he was an adult yet, as found in NA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] EWHC 2357 at [27], the reliance upon physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis for assessment. The report provides no details at all about which aspects of the applicant’s physical appearance and demeanour led to that conclusion. No concerns are raised about the applicant’s evidence and no inconsistencies are identified or relied upon, albeit that there was not much evidence to assess, given the brevity of the questioning as seen from the social workers’ handwritten notes. In addition, the report is not accompanied by any information as to the social workers’ backgrounds, qualifications and experience, aside from stating that they had 11 years’ experience. It is not clear if that was 11 years each or between them, and neither was there any explanation as to whether that 11 years’ experience was with asylum seekers and refugees and was with undertaking age assessments and asylum seekers.

63. In so far as Mr Millington submitted that the report carried weight because it was consistent with the Home Office officials’ view, I do not consider that the initial age decision made on 13 July 2025 is in itself a piece of evidence to which any material weight can be attached. There is no information at all as to the experience of the officials who made the assessment in such matters and neither were any reasons provided for the conclusion reached on the applicant’s date of birth other than the brief reasons at the end based upon his appearance and demeanour. I take account of the fact that the assessment was made when the applicant had just completed a long and arduous journey and that he was exhausted and scared, as he explained in his statement. I do not consider that a reliable assessment could have been made in such circumstances. In addition it is of particular relevance that the respondent is not relying upon the date of birth adopted by the Home Office, as Mr Millington specifically confirmed, and the respondent’s own case is simply that the applicant is an adult, with no suggestion of his age or date of birth.

64. For all these reasons I consider the respondent’s case to be weak. The social workers’ assessment is particularly unhelpful and deficient. Whilst the respondent does not bear any burden of proof, as is also the case with the applicant, I have to assess the weight to be given to the respective cases of the parties. Having had the benefit of hearing from, and observing, the applicant myself at the hearing and considering the evidence of Ms McDonnell, and taking the evidence as a whole, I do accept that he is the age he claims to be.

65. That then leaves the question of the applicant’s date of birth, as I am required to state a date of birth for the applicant. Although, as discussed above, I consider the date provided by the applicant to be one given to him on his journey and that it is not necessarily reflective of his true date of birth, it seems to me that it would be most appropriate to adopt that as his date of birth given that it is sufficiently reflective of his age.

66. Accordingly, taking all the evidence before me into account and doing the best I can with that evidence, I am satisfied that the applicant is the age he claims to be and that he was 17 years of age at the time of the brief enquiry age assessment.

DECISION

67. I find that the applicant was born on 19 January 2008 and is currently 18 years of age and I make a declaration to that effect.

68. In so far as I have accepted the applicant’s claimed age and date of birth, the applicant has succeeded in this judicial review claim.

Anonymity

Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/269) the anonymity order previously made remains in place.