Age assessments and inconsistent back stories

Joshua Swirsky reports on an unusual fact-finding case concerning an age assessment before the Upper Tribunal.

R(NA) v London Borough of Hammersmith was unusual because of two matters that the judge found to be significant factors in deciding that the applicant was not being truthful about his age.

The case raises two different areas that local authorities can explore when carrying out age assessments if the facts suggest that it would be appropriate.

Background to the fact-finding

The applicant, NA was a young man from Eritrea. He said he had lived in Ethiopia for most of life.

1st significant factor

• NA arrived in Europe by what was referred to as a ‘business class’ route during the trial. (He had flown from Sudan to France and then entered the UK by small boat).
• He was able to enter France because the agent, who accompanied him, presented what must have been a legitimate passport to the French authorities.
• His only known relative, an aunt, had worked as a housemaid in Ethiopia and was then said to be living in penury in Sudan.
• However NA was unable to give a sensible or credible explanation of how he or his aunt could fund such a journey, which avoided all the dangers of the overland route from Ethiopia/Eritrea with which local authorities will be familiar.

2nd significant factor

• NA claimed to have had no formal education and said he had been taught by the son of the household where his aunt worked in Ethiopia.
• However, when he arrived in the UK, NA excelled in all aspects of his education. He studied for BTech qualifications without having first completed an ESOL course. His English was of a high standard straight away yet he was unable to explain his educational attainment given his back story.

Judgment

Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell found that both of these factors were significant and relied upon them, along with some other inconsistencies, when rejecting NA’s account of his age, journey and backstory.

NA’s claimed age was rejected and he was found to be an adult despite various flaws in the age assessment itself and some psychiatric evidence that was adduced to suggest that NA was younger than his assessed age.

Joshua Swirsky is a barrister at Field Court Chambers. He represented the successful local authority in this case.