Inner House accepts asylum seeker’s petition challenging age assessment was not academic and refuses it on merits

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] CSIH 4
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Inner House
• Judge:
  Lord Clark

Petitioner and reclaimer Dastan Ibrahimi, who claimed his date of birth was 13 January 2006, made a request for accommodation to Glasgow City Council in terms of section 25(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which refused the request after determining that he was over 18. The respondent’s position was that, even if the petition was not academic, the ground of challenge amounted to no more than disagreement.

The appeal was heard by Lady Wise, Lord Clark, and Lady Carmichael. Macgregor KC and Winter, advocate, appeared for the petitioner and reclaimer and Johnston KC and D Welsh, advocate, for the respondent.

Live and practical consequences

On 18 July 2023, two social workers employed by the respondent conducted an age assessment of the petitioner. During the interview, he had access to an interpreter via telephone. The social workers concluded that, based on his appearance and demeanour and in accordance with the decision in R v Merton London BC (2003), the petitioner was obviously over the age of 18 and a full assessment was not required.

In its answers to the petition, the council stated on Mr Ibrahimi’s arrival in the UK he gave his year of birth was 2002 and had arrived by lorry with his uncle. The petitioner stated that this was incorrect, and that his uncle had told him to give a date of birth that put him over 18 to avoid being placed with a foster family. The council submitted that the petition was academic and should be refused by the lord ordinary for that reason alone.

Under reference to various authorities including the similar case of Abdullah v Aberdeenshire Council (2024), the lord ordinary concluded that the application was academic. He went on to reject the petitioner’s submissions on the unfairness of the decision, noting that the council had clearly stated what factors it relied on in assessing age. These were matters of direct observation, not an inferential conclusion reached after an evaluation of witness evidence.

In his reclaiming motion, the petitioner submitted that the lord ordinary was wrong to find the petition was academic, as in the absence of reduction he would have to go through life with the wrong age, giving rise to live and practical consequences. The Home Office would be entitled to rely on the assessment when determining his claim. Additionally, adequate reasons had not been given for the decision, with the letter of 19 July 2023 doing no more than reciting well-known policy and case law.

Not lengthy or elaborate

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Clark said of the nature of the claim: “It was sufficiently clear that, going forward, the age assessment could potentially have an impact in relation to the reclaimer, even though he is now (on his own approach) already over the age of 18. The decision by the respondent was not made under section 50 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and so it is not a binding decision. However, while the Home Office may decide not to rely on the respondent’s age assessment when determining the asylum claim, it is entitled to treat it as relevant.”

He added: “If the reclaimer’s asylum claim is rejected and he appeals against it, the First-tier Tribunal may have regard to the respondent’s decision about his age. Moreover, we accept the reclaimer’s submissions that if he is still under the age of 21 he is entitled to ask for local authority assistance in terms of section 25(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and in that regard the current decision of the respondent could again be relevant.”

Addressing the adequacy of the respondent’s reasons, Lord Clark said: “There was a central credibility issue dealt with in the decision letter, given what the reclaimer had said about his age. It must have been abundantly clear to the reclaimer that his position on that fundamental point was not believed. In any event, the decision was arrived at because of his physical appearance and demeanour and did not turn on particular aspects of the credibility of his account.”

He went on to say: “Where it is very obvious that an individual is over 18, there is no need for a prolonged inquiry. The decision of the social workers that his physical appearance and demeanour strongly suggested that he was significantly over 18 years of age equiparates with that test in Merton. In those circumstances, extensive analysis of a wide range of matters was not required. It is well-established that the reasons need not be lengthy or elaborate. We are satisfied that adequate reasons were provided in the decision letter.”

Lord Clark concluded: “It was entirely legitimate for the social workers, who are experienced in age assessments, to have regard to the various physical matters identified such as broad shoulders, broad hands, his height and build. As is explained in the contemporaneous notes, they formed the view that he had a fully developed Adam’s apple, consistent with an adult male, an angle face which was inconsistent with a 17-year-old, and a fully developed physique unlike that of a 17-year-old. His old acne scars on his cheeks were said to be also inconsistent with facial features of a 17-year-old. These assessments cannot be seen as irrational, in the sense of being a conclusion that no reasonable authority could have reached.”

The court therefore concluded that, while the reclaiming motion succeeded to the extent that the petition was not academic, it still fell to be refused on the substantive issues.