Joshua Swirsky discusses R(MAA) v LB Hounslow in which he acted for the local authority in successfully resisting permission for judicial review in an age assessment case. The High Court applied the established legal tests for permission on procedural fairness grounds and factual grounds.
This is obviously a fact-sensitive case, as all age assessment cases are. However, it shows that judges will give weight in certain circumstances to brief age assessments.
Those circumstances in this case were strong opinions held by 4 qualified social workers and no contrary evidence other than the opinions of unqualified support workers.
Of course it should not be taken as a licence to carry out brief assessments when a full age assessment would be appropriate.
Background to the age assessment
MAA arrived in the UK in October 2023 and claimed to be a child.
His age was disputed by the Home Office.
More significantly the City of Westminster had carried out a brief age assessment and determined that he was an adult largely on the basis of his physical appearance and demeanour.
MAA then presented to the LB Hounslow. It also carried out a brief assessment and concluded that MAA was an adult based on his physical appearance and demeanour.
MAA’s challenge to the local authority's assessment
MAA challenged the local authority’s assessment claiming:
- there should have been a full Merton compliant assessment
- the procedure adopted by the local authority was flawed.
In the alternative, he argued that given the facts he should be found to be a child.
He had supporting witness statements from a Refugee Council advocate and voluntary sector worker; both said that they had no reason to believe he was not his claimed age.
Permission was refused on the papers and MAA’s renewal application was heard by Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge.
Procedural arguments
The judge rejected all the procedural arguments citing the decision of Swift J in R(HAM) v LB Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 Admin (in which Joshua acted for the successful local authority) and the Court of Appeal decision in R(SB) v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2023] EWCA Civ 924, to the effect that a fair procedure was determined not by checklists but would depend on the circumstances of the case.
Factual arguments
As for the factual challenge the judge applied the test for permission derived from R(FZ) v LB Croydon [2011] EWCA Civ 59 but found that on the facts there was no arguable case to go the Upper Tribunal.
He held that it was significant that 4 social workers from 2 local authorities, all trained in age assessment, had concluded that MAA was significantly over 18.
The opinions of others who were untrained and a self-reported document from France were insufficient to enable MAA to overcome the low threshold set in FZ.
Read the judgment in full in R(MAA) v London Borough of Hounslow [2024] EWHC 1894 Admin