High Court Examines Age Assessments for Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers in Pishtian Karimi v Sheffield City Council Case: Key Legal Principles Analyzed

Citation: [2024] EWHC 93 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The High Court of Justice in the case of Pishtian Karimi, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council [2024] EWHC 93 (Admin) provides an examination of the principles surrounding age assessments in judicial review proceedings involving unaccompanied asylum seekers. This article analyzes the key topics discussed by Fordham J and elucidates the legal principles applied, connecting them to the relevant sections of the judgment.

Key Facts

The Claimant, an unaccompanied asylum seeker, challenged the age assessment conducted by Sheffield City Council which determined him to be older than 17 years of age. Age assessments are critical as they influence the support system that an asylum seeker is entitled to under the physical care and legal protections afforded to children. The Claimant’s application for judicial review was initially refused, but the matter was not certified as totally without merit. The oral hearing resulted in Fordham J granting permission for judicial review, addressing several important factors including the assessment’s reliance on physical characteristics, the ‘minded-to’ stage of the decision-making process, the Claimant’s independent travel capacity, and the timeliness of document submission.

Objective Hard-edged Factual Question

Fordham J highlights the distinction in age assessment cases between conventional ‘soft review’ public law principles and the ‘objective hard-edged factual question’. The court follows the threshold identified in R (FZ) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 59, which requires material that could not properly succeed in a contested factual hearing to justify refusing permission. The Claimant’s case did not meet the ‘knockout blow’ criterion to deny judicial review.

Emphasis on Physical Characteristics

The court considered principles from R (B) v Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin), which requires a decision to depend on history, physical appearance, and behavior in the absence of reliable documentary evidence. Fordham J observed potential overemphasis on physical characteristics within the Council’s assessment, raising questions as to whether it was accorded primary weight.

Minded-To Stage

The ‘minded-to’ process prior to decision-making is underlined in this case. It provides a crucial chance for the putative child to respond before a final decision. Fordham J referenced the ADCS Age Assessment Guidance, noting that the way the ‘minded-to’ stage is conducted and communicated is significant. The judgment suggests that the Council’s characterisation of this stage is arguable, which may impact the upper tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence.

Travel as an Indicator of Maturity

The assessment’s reliance on the Claimant’s ability to travel independently was debated. Given the Claimant’s own account of his travels to the UK as a seventeen-year-old, Fordham J agreed with Mr Buckley (Claimant’s counsel) that the assessment’s conclusion on this point was contestable.

Timeliness of Document Submission

The judgment also emphasizes the importance of timely submissions of documents, reflecting on the challenge posed to judicial pre-reading when materials are provided late or with no prior warning. Fordham J disallowed reliance on late-submitted evidence that was not previously filed or served.

Outcomes

Fordham J granted permission for judicial review, enabling the case to proceed to the upper tribunal. The pre-existing order for costs was set aside, recognizing that the comprehensive evaluation of arguments and evidence would occur at the upper tribunal level. The case management will be undertaken by the tribunal, with a renewed focus on the proper conduct of age assessments and procedural fairness.

Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in Pishtian Karimi v Sheffield City Council encompasses foundational principles in the arena of age assessments for unaccompanied asylum seekers. The methodological approach of the assessment, its adherence to the warn-and-inform ‘minded-to’ process, and the balance between objective facts and subjective observations such as physical characteristics and travel abilities were central to the court’s analysis. The case also serves as a procedural cautionary tale on the provision of materials to the court in a timely manner. Notably, Fordham J’s decision articulates the continued relevance of judicial review in such cases, even when the claimant has reached adulthood during the proceedings, stressing the significance of the issue for both the individual and the integrity of the legal system.