Hawbir Muhammadi, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council
[2024] EWHC 483 (Admin)
Pishtian Karimi, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council
23 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 93 (Admin)
High Court
A young asylum seeker challenged the local council's decision about his age. The court decided to send the case to a higher court for a full hearing, even though the council had a good case. The higher court will look at whether the council correctly assessed the young person's age.
Key Facts
- •Judicial review application concerning a local authority age assessment of an unaccompanied asylum seeker.
- •Claimant is now 18 years and 10 months old.
- •Initial permission for judicial review refused, but not certified as totally without merit.
- •Age assessment relied heavily on physical characteristics (height, stubble).
- •Concerns raised about the 'minded-to' process and its clarity.
- •Claimant's ability to travel independently was considered in the assessment.
- •Late submission of a defendant's skeleton argument.
Legal Principles
In age assessment cases, the court considers whether the material raises a factual case that could not properly succeed in a contested factual hearing.
R (FZ) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 59 at §9
Age determination depends on history given, physical appearance, and behavior, especially in the absence of reliable documentary evidence.
R (B) v Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin) at §20
Overemphasis on physical characteristics in age assessments should be avoided.
Various case law and guidance (mentioned but not specifically cited)
The 'minded-to' process should be clear to decision-makers and the individual being assessed, providing a final opportunity to respond before a decision is made.
ADCS Age Assessment Guidance (October 2015), Chapter 6, pages 27-28
Legal principles concerning 'former relevant children' and age assessment cases remain applicable even after the individual turns 18.
R (HP) v Greenwich RLBC [2023] EWHC 744 (Admin) [2023] PTSR 1499; R (GE (Eritrea)) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1490 [2015] 1 WLR 4123
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review granted and case transferred to the Upper Tribunal.
The court found the claim properly arguable and that there was no 'knockout blow' justifying refusal of permission.
Costs order made by the judge refusing permission on the papers set aside.
Consequent to granting permission for judicial review.
Defendant's late skeleton argument largely considered, except for a point relying on unfiled evidence.
Judge accepted apology but highlighted the importance of timely document submission for effective pre-reading.
Similar Cases
LS, R (on the application of) v Warrington Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 2872 (Admin)
KRA, R (on the application of) v Cheshire East Council
[2024] EWHC 575 (Admin)
NCH (Vietnam), R (on the application of) v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
[2023] EWHC 1033 (Admin)
SH, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council
[2024] EWHC 2669 (Admin)