Background
EXR arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat in September 2025 and initially gave a 2000 date of birth, stating that he was 25. He later said that he was born in 2008 and was 17. The Secretary of State treated him as an adult for the UK-France Treaty 2025 removal scheme, from which unaccompanied children were excluded for safeguarding reasons.
EXR produced a scanned birth certificate and later an original, family witness statements and expert reports. Hillingdon Council assessed him as an adult. The Home Office relied on that assessment in maintaining its own age assessment, declaring his asylum claim inadmissible, and scheduling removals to France in December 2025 and March 2026. Each proposed removal was restrained or cancelled.
The Court’s Holding
Fordham J allowed the judicial review in material part. The initial decisions of 30 September and 13 October 2025 were reasonable, and the court did not finally determine the reasonableness of the 23 October decision. But the later decisions of 28 November 2025, 2 February 2026, 9 March 2026 and 18 March 2026 were unreasonable and were quashed.
The Home Office could not reasonably rely on Hillingdon’s assessments as Merton-compliant. The November assessment failed to address the scanned birth certificate. The January paper reassessment was procedurally unfair and failed to consider EXR’s relevant witness statement. The court also held that the Home Office committed serious breaches of its duty of candour by failing to disclose an ATLAS record showing Merton non-compliance and, later, correspondence arranging the restricted reassessment. The inadmissibility and three removal decisions were therefore unlawful.
Key Takeaways
- When relying on a local-authority age assessment, the Home Office must independently satisfy itself that the assessment is Merton-compliant.
- A reassessment cannot cure an earlier flaw if it is unfairly confined or omits a key piece of evidence.
- In judicial review, the duty of candour required disclosure of relevant ATLAS records and Home Office-local authority correspondence.
Why It Matters
The judgment applies anxious scrutiny to age decisions that expose a person to removal under a scheme expressly excluding unaccompanied children. It confirms that the Home Office’s policy obligations concerning Merton compliance, evidential enquiry and reasoned decision-making are enforceable through conventional public-law review.
For immigration practitioners, the case also underscores that internal caseworking records and communications shaping an age-assessment process may be central disclosure material, particularly where removal is imminent.