Key Facts
- •The claimant, an Eritrean national, claims a date of birth of 20 May 2007, but the Home Office assessed his age as 20 May 1997.
- •Sheffield City Council conducted a brief age assessment concluding the claimant was over 18.
- •The claimant challenged the assessment on procedural unfairness grounds and the factual correctness of the age determination.
- •The challenge included allegations of interpreter issues, insufficient reasoning, and failure to consider relevant evidence.
- •The claim sought declarations, a quashing order, a mandatory order, and a declaration specifying the claimant's date of birth.
Legal Principles
Two elements to age assessment challenges: traditional judicial review grounds and the factual issue of age.
R (on the application of Pishtian Karimi) v Sheffield City Council [2024] EWHC 93 (Admin)
Permission for judicial review requires an arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success.
The Administrative Court, Judicial Review Guide 2024
In age assessment cases, the court considers whether the material raises a factual case that could not properly succeed in a contested factual hearing (Croydon test).
R (FZ) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 59
Sufficient reasons must be given for an age assessment decision.
AS v Croydon [2011] EWHC 2091 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission to apply for judicial review was refused.
The court found the claimant's arguments lacked a real prospect of success. The procedural challenges were deemed fact-specific and not indicative of general unfairness. The factual challenge to the claimant's age failed to meet the Croydon test.
Interim relief, including accommodation as a child, was refused.
This followed the refusal of permission for judicial review and considered factors such as lack of swift application and weighing of public interest.