JR256 vs Northern Health and Social Care Trust

This case concerned a dispute over the age assessment of an asylum seeker, JR256, involving conflicting assessments from different social services authorities.

TLDR:

• JR256 challenged the age assessment conducted by Northern Health and Social Care Trust (NHSCT).
• The court had to determine the validity of conflicting age assessments from NHSCT and Manchester City Council.
• The court preferred the Manchester assessment, finding it more detailed and compliant with guidelines.

The claimant, JR256, an asylum seeker, was subject to age assessments by different social services authorities. The Northern Health and Social Care Trust (NHSCT) conducted an assessment that differed from an earlier one by Manchester City Council, leading to a legal dispute.

JR256 argued that the NHSCT assessment was more accurate and should be accepted. The assessment was conducted by two social workers with the support of an independent guardian and an interpreter. The assessment concluded that JR256 was a minor.

Conversely, the Manchester City Council's assessment, conducted earlier, concluded that JR256 was an adult. This assessment was detailed, involving multiple sessions with social workers, an interpreter, and an appropriate adult. However, JR256 did not engage fully with the Manchester assessment process.

The court examined both assessments. It noted that the Manchester assessment followed the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) guidelines and involved comprehensive background checks and professional opinions. Despite JR256's non-engagement, the Manchester assessment provided a detailed analysis of his physical appearance, behavior, and history.

The NHSCT assessment, while benefiting from JR256's engagement, failed to adequately address the concerns raised by the Manchester assessment. The court found that the NHSCT did not sufficiently liaise with Manchester City Council or consider the detailed findings of the Manchester assessment.

The court ultimately preferred the Manchester assessment, citing its detailed and cogent explanations. It criticized the NHSCT for not engaging properly with the Manchester assessment and for giving JR256 'the benefit of the doubt' without sufficient analysis.

The court granted JR256 leave but refused to grant judicial review on the substance of the application, emphasizing the importance of detailed and compliant age assessments in such cases.

Legal representatives: Mr. Southey for the applicant, Mr. Kennedy for the proposed respondent.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mr. Justice Green

Case Citation Reference: [2023] NIQB 256