Expert Witness Journal Issue 65 February 2026 - Flipbook - Page 45
When fresh evidence isn’t enough:
Understanding the threshold
for age assessment reviews
by Sarah Erwin-Jones, Partner & Miya Watson, Paralegal at Browne Jacobson
We don’t celebrate good practice enough. Here we
do, and we shall explain why. In age-dispute cases,
individuals often submit supporting evidence
including identity documents, court records,
and witness statements from family, friends, or
professionals.
•
The claimant sought judicial review. Whilst granted
interim relief and partial permission, HHJ Julian
Knowles ultimately dismissed the claim.
R(F) v Manchester City Council [2019] EWHC 2998
(Admin) 1 demonstrates the critical importance
of thoroughly evaluating such evidence and
understanding when it triggers a duty to reassess.
Crucially it also shows how helpful it is for social
workers to records what they have taken into account
and why they have reached their conclusions.
On Ground 1 (refusal to reassess), the judge held
the defendant’s decision was rational. The court
document, though the ‘high point’ of the claim,
raised serious inconsistencies about how it was
obtained. The judge agreed that Home O昀케ce
veri昀椀cation would achieve little, as the issue wasn’t
authenticity but procurement circumstances. The
professional witness statements provided only
general, subjective observations without su昀케cient
detail.
The claimant, a Guinean national claiming to be
born on 9 December 2001 (aged 17), arrived in the
UK and was referred to Manchester City Council,
entering care under Section 20 Children Act 19892.
An age assessment conducted between September
and December 2018 concluded he was 20 years old.
On Ground 2 (challenging the original assessment),
permission was refused as the claim was 昀椀led outside
the three-month time limit and lacked su昀케cient
strength to satisfy the FZ test (whether there was
a realistic prospect the court would conclude the
claimant was younger than assessed).
In February 2019, the claimant challenged this
assessment, submitting letters from a Greater
Manchester Immigration Aid Unit support worker
and a Latter-Day Saints missionary, plus a Guinean
court document con昀椀rming his claimed date of
birth.
Implications for social work practice
This case reinforces that social workers must:
Manchester City Council refused to reassess,
reasoning that:
•
1. Examine evidence critically, not just
super昀椀cially: Consider not only what documents
say, but how they were obtained and whether
they align with the individual’s broader narrative
The support worker and missionary evidence
did not make it ‘more likely’ the claimant was 17
rather than 20.
•
The court document, whilst not disputed
as fraudulent, was obtained speci昀椀cally to
challenge the assessment.
•
Signi昀椀cantly, the document was applied for by
the claimant’s father and supported by relatives,
directly contradicting the claimant’s account of
昀氀eeing family abuse.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
The original assessment was Merton-compliant,
conducted by two experienced social workers
with appropriate safeguards.
2. Document your reasoning meticulously: Record
what evidence was provided, what investigations
were undertaken, what weight was given to each
piece of evidence, and why it was accepted or
rejected
3. Look for internal consistency: Evidence that
contradicts the individual’s own account (such
as family members assisting with documentation
when the individual claims to have 昀氀ed family
abuse) signi昀椀cantly undermines credibility
43
FEBRUARY 2026
