JR2022LON000606 [2023] UKAITUR JR2022LON000606 (5 May 2023)

judgment is to be understood as expressing a view as to whether he was." 129. The submissions and arguments to which I have referred set out the parties' positions in relation to the lawfulness of the process by which the respondent came to the view as to the applicant's age. As is apparent from those arguments and the cases to which I was referred, the need for an appropriate adult and the need for a 'minded to' process for a lawful assessment of age by a local authority is a matter upon which there is a divergence of view. 130. It is not necessary for me to resolve that dispute in this judgment because my task is to assess the applicant's age on the basis of the evidence overall. What are said to be the deficiencies in the age assessment reflect the weight to be attached to that aspect of the evidence. 131. This is a case in which there is no documentary evidence of the applicant's age. Necessarily, therefore, his account of events and circumstances is significant in informing my judgment, taken together with all the other surrounding evidence whether directly relating to his age or otherwise. However, is not necessary to resolve every issue of fact or credibility advanced by the parties. 132. The applicant's account of his family circumstances, his upbringing and his relative lack of education, about which he has been mostly consistent, are matters to be taken into account when considering his credibility generally. They are also relevant in terms of whether the applicant ought to have had an appropriate adult during the age assessment and whether there ought to have been a 'minded to' process. 133. It was submitted by Ms Patyna that the witness statements of the social workers who conducted the age assessment are lacking in detail as to why a so-called 'short-form' assessment was undertaken. I have considered that submission, together with the witness statement of Peter Tucker, the team leader. The evidence from the witness statements indicates that the social workers considered that the applicant was significantly over the age of 18, hence the decision to undertake a short-form assessment. A justification was, therefore, given, albeit that further detail could have been provided in the witness statements (as distinct from the age assessment interview itself) in terms of why it was thought that the applicant was significantly over the age of and thus justifying the short-form age assessment. I also note that from the evidence of the social worker Rachelle Doe, the only age assessments undertaken by that department is the short-form age assessment. This is not entirely consistent with the evidence of Mohammed Adam or Peter Tucker. 134. In the light of the above observations, it seems to me that it would have been preferable in the case of this applicant for there to have been an appropriate adult present during the age assessment that took place on 4 November 2021. 135. Having said that, it must also be borne in mind that the assessment was undertaken by two social workers experienced in dealing with children and young persons. Some regard must be had to that fact when considering the evidence of the age assessment which resulted in a combined view of the two social workers as to age. 136. In addition, I bear in mind what is said in the age assessment about the applicant having adopted an "adult mannerism" during the process, and what was said about his demeanour and appearance, which is relevant to the extent to which it could be said that the assessment may have been adversely affected because of the absence of an appropriate adult. 137. There is some merit in what is said on behalf of the applicant in terms of a lack of a 'minded to' process. It is reasonably clear that the conclusion of those undertaking the age assessment was not simply arrived at on the basis of the applicant's appearance and demeanour. There were other matters that were taken into account. 138. A proper 'minded to' process would also have involved informing the applicant that the view as to his age was a provisional one only. 139. Having said all that, the applicant was informed of the views of the social workers and he was given the opportunity to respond, which he did. His reaction of upset is a matter that is relied on on his behalf and I take it into account. 140. Moving on from the age assessment itself, I exercise some caution when considering the evidence of dates, given the potential for error or confusion when dates must be converted from the Gregorian to the Iranian calendar. 141. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that in the second initial contact and asylum registration questionnaire, which was completed on 17 March 2022, the various dates of birth (there appear to be four variations), must all have come from the applicant, in answer to the question of whether he had used other names and dates of birth. There are also a series of names with slightly different spellings. It was suggested that these must show that these are dates of birth that the applicant has used at some point and that there would be no need for any border official to write all these details unless the applicant had given that information. 142. However, I do not consider that it can necessarily be said that this was evidence of inconsistency in the applicant's account given the caution that I consider needs to be exercised in relation to converting dates, and in relation to names the possibility that these may simply have been recorded differently by those taking the details. Quite apart from that, it hardly seems likely that in answer to the question about whether he had given other names or dates of birth the applicant would offer the nine names with various differences in spelling and dates of birth. The applicant does, however, accept that he gave his brother's name when in Italy. 143. Further in relation to this aspect of the evidence, there appears to be some merit in the submission made on behalf of the applicant that these details may simply be a cut and paste of the Home Office document that appears at page 218 of the bundle, being an extract from the CID notes. 144. Although the applicant said in the age assessment interview of 4 November 2021 that he left Iran on 23 September 2021, that plainly cannot be correct as he arrived in the UK on 17 September 2021, which is in fact what he said later in the same interview; a matter that is not contested. This is a further illustration of the difficulty that can arise when different calendars are used. 145. In relation to the credibility of the applicant's account of his journey by car from the border with Turkey and Iran to Istanbul, I was invited on behalf of the respondent to take judicial notice of the distance from the Iranian border to Istanbul as being about 2,500 kilometres. This was in the context of the applicant's evidence that the car did not stop so that food or petrol could be bought, being implicitly an aspect of his account that was not credible. The applicant's evidence was that he was asleep during the journey. However, I do not consider that judicial notice can be taken of that distance. That is a matter for evidence, in relation to which none was put before me, rather than judicial notice, which has a much more limited scope. 146. There are, however, significant credibility issues that arise in relation to the applicant's evidence, starting with his account of how he knows his date of birth. In his first witness statement he said that he knows his date of birth because his mother told him every year on the day that he was born. She would hug him and tell him he was born on the same day. She did the same with his sister. In oral evidence initially he confirmed that he knew the year of his birthday but not the month or the day, and that his mother told him the year but not the month or day. Later in cross- examination his evidence was that his mother told him on one occasion the year, the month and the day when he was 13 or 14 years of age and that after that she only told him the year. 147. The inconsistency in his account, therefore, is whether his mother told him only the year that he was born, or the year and also the day and month. In other contexts this may not be a significant inconsistency but it is so given that the applicant's date of birth is the central issue in these proceedings. In addition, the applicant's evidence was that his mother only told him the day and the month he was born when he was 13 or 14 years old and that he remembered it from that time, thereafter only having been told the year. His account of how he knows his precise date of birth depends, therefore, on his remembering it from when he was aged 13 or 14 years. 148. There is a significant and fundamental inconsistency in the applicant's account of why he had to leave Iran in the first place. In his first witness statement he said that there was a telephone call to him from his father when he was at his uncle's house. His father said that his name had been given to the authorities by his cousin Mohammed, who had been captured. His father arranged for him to go to Turkey from his uncle's house. This is the same as the account given in the age assessment of 4 November 2021. The applicant's oral evidence, however, was that he had not gone to his uncle's house but was at his own house (his father's) when he received the call. He said that what was in his witness statement in this respect was incorrect. It is not, however, a matter that is corrected or clarified in his second witness statement, although there are clarifications and corrections in relation to various other matters. 149. The applicant at first said in oral evidence that the KDPI letter, which was the source of the problem with the authorities, and which the applicant was told by his cousin to look after, was in fact delivered by him and his cousin. Later in cross-examination he said that it was not delivered. He said that that day Mohammed had work and Mohammed said to him that as he was going home he was to take the letter with him, and he did not deliver the letter. The letter was at home. Again, this is not a matter that the applicant sought to clarify in his second witness statement. 150. I regard this inconsistency in the applicant's account in relation to whether he was at his own home or his uncle's and what happened to the KDPI letter as significant in terms of his credibility, given that these matters concern the very reason the applicant gives for having left his home country and his family. 151. The applicant's account in his witness statement of how he knew the month that he left Iran was that his boss would tell him how much money he had brought in from smuggling at the end of each month. He states that he left shortly after he had told him how much money he had brought in at the end of the sixth month, which is how he knows he left in the seventh month. 152. However, the applicant said in evidence that this is incorrect and that he actually worked out the month that he left when he got to the UK, stating that because he got to the UK in September he must have left Iran in July, the seventh month. In his second witness statement he states that what he said in his first witness statement about this was incorrect; that his boss did not pay him monthly or regularly. This was also the effect of his oral evidence. 153. The point made about this on behalf of the respondent seems to me to be a valid one, namely that this detail in the first witness statement about how he knew the month that he left Iran is likely to have been something that the applicant made up. The detail in the first witness statement does not realistically admit of an alternative explanation. 154. I bear in mind, however, that even if the applicant could be said to have made up this aspect of his account, or indeed any other, it does not of itself mean that his evidence overall is not to be believed. 155. The applicant's account of his journey to the UK was also inconsistent in a significant way. In his first witness statement he said that he left Iran by van and that his uncle gave him some documents in a folder and told him to keep them safe and show them to the authorities in a safe country to prove his identity. He stated that he does not remember specifically seeing his shenasnameh (ID card) although he is sure it would have been there. In oral evidence, however, he said that it was not his uncle that gave him those documents at the time he left Iran but they were sent to an agent in Dunkirk. 156. Contrary to his witness statement he said in evidence that the documents were sent to him, not given to him. They were given to the agent in France. He said that he does not know how those documents got to the agent in France but they were sent to the agent. Although in his witness statement he said that he had looked at the documents (when his uncle gave them to him), in oral evidence he said that he never looked at the documents and does not know what they were. 157. Apart from the obvious inconsistency in the applicant's account in this respect, it is difficult to see how an agent could have been provided with the applicant's documents in France given the applicant's oral evidence that he had had no contact with his family before he got to Dunkirk and he just followed the other people he was with when he was in Europe. His evidence was that he never intended to go to Dunkirk. He agreed with the suggestion put to him in cross-examination that it was very fortunate that the agent was able to find him in France. 158. Ms Patyna invited me to take judicial notice of the fact that agents are linked to others in terms of how the applicant's uncle was able to get in touch with an agent in France. This again, is not a matter about which I can take judicial notice. As a matter of common sense it may well be that a people smuggling operation has several links in the chain. However, the applicant's account in this respect was simply inconsistent. It was also inherently incredible on the basis of the applicant's own account that he had no contact with his family before getting to France and was simply following others. There is no evidential basis from which to conclude that any agent connected to his uncle, or his uncle, would have known that he was in France, much less that such an agent would have been provided with documents whilst the applicant was there. Furthermore, the applicant's evidence was that his last contact with the agent was in Turkey. 159. The parties suggested that the fact that the applicant rejected the offer of additional social work support is a matter in favour of their respective cases. However, I regard this as a neutral matter. The rejection of that additional support could indicate someone who is older than the applicant claims to be, on the basis that because they are older they do not need that additional support. On behalf of the applicant, however, the point is made that if the applicant wanted to create a false narrative as to his age he would have been more likely to agree to that additional support. 160. Now reflecting on the evidence overall, I am not satisfied that the applicant has given a credible account of his age. His account suffers from the significant inconsistencies to which I have referred, as well as being inherently incredible in relation to how he remembers his date of birth and the account of the agent finding him in France and providing him with documents. These matters overall undermine the applicant's credibility. 161. In addition, I do attach some weight to the age assessment, conducted as it was by professional and experienced social workers. 162. I find that the applicant's likely date of birth is 12 January 1996 as assessed by the respondent. I reject the applicant's assertion that his date of birth is 13 April 2004. There is no evidential basis from which to conclude that a date of birth other than those proposed by the parties, respectively, should be found. ~~~~0~~~~ BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII