Vulnerable child wrongly assessed to be an adult
Alex McMahon![DATE OF BIRTH close up on a printed form](https://law.wpstaging.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/iStock-910542850.jpg)
Table of Contents
Upper Tribunal finds a vulnerable child to be 17 years old despite two flawed local authority age assessments which led to denial of Children Act 1989 support and accommodation
The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) recently handed down judgment on 6 April 2022 in the case of R (K) v London Borough of Brent [2022] JR-2021-LON-001398, accepting the claimed age of a vulnerable child of 17 years of age at the date of hearing, and rejecting that he was an adult of 23 or 24 years old as Brent assessed him to be. The judgment followed from a 4-day contested fact-finding hearing which raised a number of legal challenges upon which the Tribunal found in the Applicantās favour.
K is an Iranian Kurd who claimed to have been born on 8 February 2005.Ā He arrived in the UK in the back of a lorry in November 2019 when he claimed to be just 14 years old. Upon arrival, K presented to the Police in Leicestershire and was taken into Leicestershireās care pending an assessment of his age. K had a series of accommodation placements before he was assessed to be an adult born on 10 February 1997, making him 22 years of age at the date of assessment and 25 years of age at the date of hearing. K did not challenge Leicestershireās age assessment. He was then treated as an adult and placed in adult asylum support accommodation in Brentās area before a safeguarding referral was raised by the British Red Cross raising concerns regarding Kās age and vulnerability. Brent refused to take K into care and instead conducted a āshort-formā assessment of his age over three sessions, which did not comply with Merton principles, before Brent concluded that he was an adult of 23 or 24 years old. K had a significant history of self-harm and hospitalisation due to mental health concerns.
At the date of hearing before the Upper Tribunal, K maintained that he was a child of 17 years of age who had been incorrectly and unlawfully age assessed to be an adult by two local authorities.
After a four-day hearing, the Upper Tribunal found in Kās favour and found him to be a vulnerable child of 17 years old. It was not in dispute between the parties that K had been diagnosed with PTSD, depression and found to have symptoms of emerging emotionally unstable personality disorder. The Tribunal found that both the Leicestershire and Brent age assessments failed to consider Kās mental health and the impact upon his behaviour and presentation, and relied heavily upon evidence from the Helen Bamber Foundation (HBF) in relation to Kās mental health symptoms and presentation.
Legal issues before the Upper Tribunal
Two legal issues were in dispute between the parties at the final hearing upon which the Tribunal found in favour of the Applicant. Both may have a bearing on the approach taken in subsequent cases.
First, Brent contended that having failed to challenge the Leicestershire age assessment that was not the direct challenge in the proceedings, he was fixed with the findings of fact recorded in the assessment and not permitted to challenge the assessment conducted by Leicestershire nor the process adopted. On behalf of K it was argued that the absence of challenge to the Leicestershire assessment was a matter that the Tribunal could take into account but at the stage of a fact-finding hearing, that assessment was merely a further source of evidence that the Tribunal was required to consider. The Tribunal found in favour of Kās position finding that there was no authority to support that a first age assessment conducted by another local authority not subject to proceedings could not be subject to scrutiny at a fact-finding hearing or could only be ātaken at its highestā. The Tribunal considered [Ā§12] that the case law supported that an earlier unchallenged age assessment should be assessed together with the rest of the evidence, per R (AM) v Solihull MBC (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 00118 (IAC).
Second, Brent argued that it would be wrong for Leicestershire assessment to be challenged and superseded by the Tribunal in circumstances where Leicestershire was not a party to proceedings but would be responsible for K if he was found to be a child as the initial assessing authority. The Tribunal again rejected this submission finding it without merit where the Leicestershire assessment should be considered in the round with the evidence and where Leicestershire were on notice of proceedings but had not taken steps to participate [Ā§13]. The Tribunal found that the question of which local authority the duty to provide s20 CA 1989 fell was out with the proceedings with which it was seized and noted the importance of geographical presence to duties under CA 1989 [Ā§14].
The Tribunal rejected that there was any issue in K āshopping aroundā for different assessments, noting that the reason that he had been moved to Brentās area was as a result of dispersal into adult asylum support accommodation by the Home Office [Ā§15].
Determination of age
The Tribunal was presented with extensive evidence on behalf of both K, Brent and material disclosed by Leicestershire. After a careful analysis of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that neither of the local authorityās age assessments could carry any significant weight and the most probative evidence was that of the HBF. The Tribunal carefully analysed evidence regarding Kās mental health conditions which were undisputed [Ā§21] and were of high significance in the determination of age.
The Tribunal noted that at early stages of his interaction with staff from Leicestershire, K presented with āanger issuesā [Ā§23] which had been read by Leicestershire to indicate that K was not a child as he claimed to be. He was noted to be low in mood and suicidal and there was evidence of self-harm including cutting his arms. He had presented in his accommodation as suicidal and barricading himself in his room before being taken to A&E. Prior to the Leicestershire age assessment, K had been assessed by CAMHS by initial assessment to be experiencing symptoms of PTSD, acute emotional dysregulation and attachment related difficulties.
The evidence of Dr Argyriou, Senior Clinical Psychologist of HBF was critical in the Tribunalās determination that Kās behaviour and interaction had been mis-read as adult behaviour when instead he presented psychologically in a manner that was āabundantly clearā to Dr Argyriou that K was a child. She found his clinical symptoms to be āvery typicalā of an adolescent [Ā§37].Ā Dr Argyriouās evidence accepted by the Tribunal in respect of there being distinctions between how a young person reacted to trauma compared to an adult [Ā§40] and that she had adapted her clinical work with K according to his claimed age. The Tribunal found Dr Argyriouās evidence to be strong and accepted that Kās behaviour was typical of an adolescent with PTSD and emotional dysregulation rather than suggestive of K being an adult [Ā§44].
The Tribunal concluded that the Leicestershire age assessment finding K to be at least 23 years of age born on 10 February 1997 would have been strongly persuasive of K being an adult had it not been for the medical evidence [Ā§47].Ā The assessment was found to rely heavily on Kās demanding and aggressive behaviour and demeanour being indicative of an adult [Ā§48].Ā The Tribunal found that Kās mental health was āmore than sufficient to show that this was not a correct interpretation of the applicantās presentationā [Ā§48].Ā The Tribunal found that even though there was limited evidence of Kās mental health condition at the time of Leicestershireās assessment, Ā it ācannot stand as a reliable assessmentā [Ā§49] and the Tribunal found that weight to be placed on it was significantly reduced [Ā§51].
In respect of Brentās age assessment, the Tribunal found that this was not a āreliable indicator: of Kās age [Ā§54], given the reliance that Brent placed upon Leicestershireās assessment, including to justify a āshort-formā process, conducted over three assessment sessions but where again, Kās challenging behaviour was relied upon without any reference to the developing body of evidence in support of mental health problems [Ā§54]. The Tribunal found that procedurally, the assessment had a number of shortcomings [Ā§55] with the absence of two social workers at all meetings; the absence of a responsible adult to support K in the process and the absence of a minded to process to afford K a fair opportunity to respond to Brentās provisional conclusions.Ā Further, the Tribunal found a there to be a failure to obtain and consider the opinions of those who had known and worked with K.
Against the absence of a reliable age assessment, the Tribunal found Kās evidence to be discrepant and unclear [Ā§60] but found that although Kās evidence was likely to be untruthful or an attempt to embellish his evidence, it was not sufficient to show that he was not a child [Ā§64].
Conclusion
This case saw an important vindication of a vulnerable child who had been wrongly assessed to be an adult on the basis of factors, such as perceived disruptive behaviour, aggression and self-harm, where the Tribunal considered that these were in fact features of adolescence, wrongly perceived. The Tribunal grappled with Brentās position that K was in effect estopped from challenging an earlier local authority age assessment for failure to challenge that assessment by judicial review which was rejected by the Tribunal in clear terms.Ā The case strongly demonstrates the importance of careful and collaborative preparation of age dispute challenges, across both the voluntary sector and medical professionals to assist vulnerable children to present and win their cases at contested hearing.
K was represented by Alex McMahon of Osbornes Law with Antonia Benfield of Doughty Street Chambers instructed as Counsel. Roxanne Nanton of the Refugee Councilās Age Dispute Project acted as litigation friend with the case being supported by the Helen Bamber Foundation and Young Roots.
To speak to a specialist housing and social care lawyer, call Alex McMahon, or compete an online enquiry form.
Share this article
Contact
Contact us today
For a free initial conversation call 020 7485 8811
Email us Send us an email and weāll get back to you
More Age Assessment Insights VIEW ALL
- 25.1.2021
Teenage asylum seeker wins legal battle against Council...
Vulnerable teenage asylum seeker wins age case against the council which unlawfully assessed him A vulnerable teenager who sought asylum...
Read more - 2.12.2020
Education provision to age disputed migrants
The thorny issue of education provision to age disputed migrants There was an interesting article in The Guardian last week...
Read more - 13.8.2019
NEWS: Osbornes successful at Upper Tribunal in complex...
R (on the Application of MRA) v Surrey County Council (JR/7871/2018) Our client MRA, a national of Iran, arrived in...
Read more - 8.4.2019
Young asylum seekers ā children being classified as adults
On BBC Newsnight, last night (5 April) reporters revealed young asylum seekers are being incorrectly classified by the Home office as...
Read more