R (on the application of AH) (by this litigation friend, Francesco Jeff) v Secretary for the Home Department IJR, 2015

 

The claimant was placed in a B&B pending the outcome of the age assessment. Following the assessment of two social workers, it was established that the claimant was allowed to maintain his claimed age of 15 years old. As a consequence, the defendant accepted to provide him with accommodation and support as an unaccompanied minor. 

 

Following this, information emerged from the Home Office regarding the claimant’s biometric data, which apparently matched those of an adult who had previously claimed asylum in Italy, whose date of birth was 1 January 1994. Concerns were also raised by his foster carer and social workers regarding his true age. As a consequence, the previous age assessment was revised, and it was concluded that the claimant was an adult. 

 

The judge presented concerns regarding various documents presented, as they often contained inaccurate information. This may showcase the low level of thoroughness of the assessment and therefore little weight should be placed on this report.

Furthermore, the court also considered the fingerprints match with those of a person who had claimed asylum in Italy. While the judge accepts that this must mean that the claimant had had his fingerprints taken in Italy, it is not probable that he is Azmi or that his date of birth was that of 1 January 1994, as previously claimed by Italian Interior Ministry. 

 

Attention was also paid to the fact that the claimant was called to the age review assessment on 19 June without being informed that his care arrangements were due to be changed. He was also not given the opportunity to respond to the information he was provided with. Therefore, the court concluded that the review was done without the safeguards which would lead to a Merton compliant decision, as set out in the original form of the assessment on 24 April. 

The court confirmed that the claimant is indeed from Khutum, due to the local words used by him throughout communication. This, together with the minor but not fatal mistaken in the Italian authorities’ recordkeeping when originally giving the claimant a date of birth of 1984 rather than 1994, led to the conclusion that weight cannot be placed on the information provided by Italy regarding the identity and age of the claimant.

 

It was not accepted that the claimant knew his date of birth because it had been written down by his father, as he had claimed previously that his father was illiterate. However, it is more probable that the claimant had indeed been told an approximate age by his parents.  

Special consideration was given to the claimant’s supporting witnesses who had known him for fairly long periods of time who all claimed he was the age he stated he was and the first age assessment which did conclude that he was a child. It was also submitted that, with the exception of his foster carer, Mrs Weldgebriel, the defendant’s witnesses have not had the time to get to know the claimant, as they only interacted with him on a few occasions. Moreover, the reconstructed notes a year later after the relevant events bare little weight, as they were not necessarily an accurate reflection, lacking significant details such as the claimant’s wish that the carer’s allowance should be paid to him. 

 

The court concludes that, due to the various factors assessed, the claimant was not an adult at the time of the assessment.