When fresh evidence isn't enough: Understanding the threshold for age assessment reviews

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.

R(F) v Manchester City Council [2019] EWHC 2998 (Admin) 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. 

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 1989. An age assessment conducted between September and December 2018 concluded he was 20 years old.

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 confirming his claimed date of birth.

Manchester City Council refused to reassess, reasoning that:

• 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 specifically to challenge the assessment.
• Significantly, the document was applied for by the claimant's father and supported by relatives, directly contradicting the claimant's account of fleeing family abuse.
• The original assessment was Merton-compliant, conducted by two experienced social workers with appropriate safeguards.

The claimant sought judicial review. Whilst granted interim relief and partial permission, HHJ Julian Knowles ultimately dismissed the claim.

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 Office verification would achieve little, as the issue wasn't authenticity but procurement circumstances. The professional witness statements provided only general, subjective observations without sufficient detail.

On Ground 2 (challenging the original assessment), permission was refused as the claim was filed outside the three-month time limit and lacked sufficient strength to satisfy the FZ test (whether there was a realistic prospect the court would conclude the claimant was younger than assessed).

Implications for social work practice

This case reinforces that social workers must:

1. Examine evidence critically, not just superficially: Consider not only what documents say, but how they were obtained and whether they align with the individual's broader narrative
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 fled family abuse) significantly undermines credibility
4. Understand the threshold for reassessment: Fresh evidence must make it 'more likely' that a significantly different conclusion would be reached; general observations from professionals with limited contact will not suffice
5. Ensure Merton compliance from the outset: A robust, well-documented initial assessment protects against successful challenge and reduces the likelihood of costly judicial review proceedings

The case demonstrates that thorough, well-reasoned initial assessments that properly consider and document all evidence will withstand legal scrutiny, even when fresh evidence emerges.

If you would like to learn more, contact us or view our other age assessment article guides.