Judicial review: Lack of focus and accurate record keeping has consequences

In ARO v London Borough of Islington [2025] (JR-2024-LON-001201), the Upper Tribunal allowed the application for judicial review of the local authority’s decision that the Applicant was significantly over 18 years old. It found him to be his claimed age and date of birth.

Across a four day hearing, Judge Loughran and Judge Norton-Taylor reviewed the evidence, arguments and procedures conducted by both parties to determine whether the local authority was correct to assess the Applicant as over 18.

ARO v London Borough of Islington

The case involved a Sudanese asylum seeker, ARO, who entered the UK on 4 December 2023 with a claimed age of 16 and date of birth of 20 September 2007. Upon entry, the Home Office immigration officers concluded ARO’s probable date of birth was 1999 due to the Applicant’s appearance and demeanour at the time. Due to the change in date of birth, the applicant was not afforded child protection or referred to children’s services but instead, was sent to adult asylum accommodation. On 6 December 2023, two social workers visited ARO to complete a "welfare assessment". They concluded that he was between 24-25 years old, and so no further assessments would be carried out and he would not receive any support under children’s services.

A judicial review claim followed in early 2024, with the Deputy High Court Judge granting permission and interim relief for ARO. Islington were ordered to treat ARO as a child and provide him with support and accommodation under Sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989.

The court’s decision to grant interim relief and afford ARO the support and services of a child, enforces the principle of giving the benefit of the doubt to the individual when significant rights and protections are concerned.

The court's analysis and findings

The court examined all evidence presented, analysing the strengths and weaknesses of each. This illustrates the key principle of assessing all evidence in a balanced and fair manner.

The local authority had their own guidelines and procedure for social workers to follow when conducting a "welfare assessment". However, it came to light that the procedure set in place had not been followed in ARO’s case. The social workers confirmed they visited ARO, yet the subsequent letter provided to ARO to confirm his age to be over 18, had the title of "brief enquiry". The court highlighted the lack of care in recording the visit prevented ARO from having the opportunity to clarify discrepancies noted by the social workers, and to bring an appeal against his assessment of age.

No detailed records were kept of the welfare assessment questions put to ARO and the answers he provided. The notes recorded were sparse and no reasoning was provided as to how the social workers reached their conclusions of the applicant. Additionally, the court found that no records, written or typed, were located regarding the applicant’s health during the "welfare assessment". 

The judgment notes the local authority’s error within internal email exchanges that mentioned the name of an individual different to ARO, who he had been confused with and seen earlier that day by one of the attending social workers.

The court reminded the local authority that their lack of attention to detail have prevented the applicant from receiving a fair and thorough assessment of age, the protections afforded under the Children Act, and the commitment to safeguarding the welfare of the vulnerable.

Key principles and implications

The case highlights several vital points and principles:

1. The importance of detailed and accurate record keeping of all visits, questions asked, and answers provided when attending individuals who may require protection and services under the Children Act 1989.
2. The need to enforce and uphold procedures – ensure all social workers are aware of the procedures in place and what conduct must be followed to confirm and uphold fair assessments for all individuals.
3. The ongoing duty of the state to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly unaccompanied age-disputed asylum seekers.