BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> C, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Merton [2005] EWHC 1753 (Admin) (15 July 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/1753.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 1753 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF C | (CLAIMANT) | |
-v- | ||
LONDON BOROUGH OF MERTON | (DEFENDANT) |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR NICHOLAS O'BRIEN (instructed by London Borough of Merton) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"In written terms, it is more likely than not that the client is 17 years old.
It is possible that the client is either 16 or 18 years old.
It is highly unlikely that the client is either 15 or 19 years old."
In the report, by way of summarising the background, Dr Michie expressed the view that there were "no inconsistencies, either verbal or non-verbal" in evidence in the information provided to him by the claimant. He went on to say:
"... she was particularly accurate in the way she described dates and events."
He said that he would welcome any further inquiry as to the details of the information which he then gave below. He went on to say that the claimant was born, as she said, in Guinea and she later gave her date of birth as 29th November 1987 and that she had not recalled any serious health problems during her early life and had no major trauma and so on. It may be indicated that her answers elsewhere to the Home Office and indeed the London Borough Merton perhaps make it a little surprising that the claimant had indicated to Dr Michie that she had no major trauma because on other occasions the claimant had been claiming that she had suffered major trauma.
"The social, schooling and narrative history provided by the client provides good verifiable support for the declared date of birth. However her height and weight, skin fold thickness, body mass index, the skin signs seen in young adults and her dental examination today were consistent with a chronological age of 17 ±2 years when compared with published charts of these measures. These observations are supported strongly by the non-objective assessment of the psychological maturity of this client during the interview, particularly in response to questions relating to her schooling and her interactions with the interpreter and myself. A more narrow error margin is probably not possible using these methods. The birthdate given to me today by [the claimant] falls within the recognised and recommended error limits for this estimate."
The overall conclusion was that his opinion was that age was consistent with a date of birth of November 1987.
"Communicating with clients, which produces non-objective evidence, is critical to performing an age assessment".
In other words, he is making clear that the assessment cannot be by strictly medical or scientific reasoning alone but critically also depends on non-objective evidence: that is to say, amongst other things, the appraisal of the reliability and credibility of the information being provided by the particular claimant concerned.
"From discussion with C she presents as a vulnerable adult. She talked of having being exploited from various people she has encountered."
A little later on, at the end of the report, this is said:
"C did not physically look 17 years old. She wanted me to be aware of her hardships and concentrated on this more than answering questions about her age".
There was then appended a detailed age assessment which went through the conclusions drawn. It was stated by the writer that, from discussions with the client and from observations, the writer could not believe that she was 17 years old as she was claiming and indeed, based on the assessment, the claimant's age was put at 25 plus.
"I have reconsidered my age assessment in light of Dr Michie's report. My original assessment was that C was over 18 years old. The basis and conclusion of Dr Michie's report has not changed my assessment and in my opinion C is over 18 years old."
"I am writing to inform you of the Local Authority's decision in relation to continuing to provide you with support under the Children Act 1989.
"You first approached this Department for assistance in January 2005. An age assessment was undertaken on 14th January 2005 and this concluded that you were not a minor and were not eligible for support under the Children Act 1989.
"This decision was reconsidered in February 2005 when you provided a medical report from Dr Colin Michie which states that he considers your chronological age to be 17 ± 2 years. Having given consideration to Dr Michie's report, the Local Authority maintained that you were not a minor and were not eligible for support as a child.
"In April 2005, the Local Authority agreed to undertake a reassessment of your age. You came into the office on Wednesday 20th April to undertake an Age Assessment interview. You met with myself and my colleague, Gertude Bernard-Draper. Following this reassessment, I consider that you are not the age you state, and consider that you are not eligible for services under the Children Act 1989.
"I have reached this decision based on your appearance and presentation, the information provided by you in the two assessments undertaken, and the information in the documents which you have provided to the Local Authority.
"In particular, I have taken into consideration the following:
"1) Your physical appearance is not consistent with the age you have stated;
"2) The information you provided at the first Age assessment in June 2004 is different to the information you have provided in this assessment, and differs from the information you provided to the Home Office in your interviews with them.
"As a result of this assessment you are not eligible for services as a child and will be notifying the Home Office of our decision.
"If you do not agree with any of the information above, or believe that there is other information that should be taken into consideration could you please contact me immediately..."
"According to the information she provided to the Home Office, and the two social workers, first in January and then this assessment, C accounted traumatic experiences. Dr Michie wrote that C 'had no problem with her concentration, memory or mental health state'. In addition when the first age assessment was to take place at Merton Social Services C fainted and was taken at the local hospital where she was examined and there was no concern about her well being. C's response was that she had suffered trauma. When asked to explain what she considered trauma she recited the rape, living with rebels and being ill treated by her stepmother.
I asked her why didn't Dr Michie refer to any scars on her body i.e. the scar on her arm. C told me she did not know. She then went on to say that she did show Dr Michie the scar on her arm."
Then the passage further goes on in other respects not dealing with Dr Michie at all.
"My overall assessment would consider that C has given different information to each profession she has encountered. This behaviour would put into question her actual age because of the inaccuracies. In addition there is the issue of culture and religious knowledge..."
Then under section 9, under the heading "Analysis of Information gained/Conclusion of the assessment" this, amongst other things, is said:
"The information about her family and her life in Guinea was very little..."
And later on:
"I would suggest that over all C has the maturity both emotionally and psychologically to interact with professionals at a sophisticated level that an African girl with her history would not have been able to understand nor negotiate successfully. C has shown that she is able to do all this when it suited her at the time. Therefore she is not the age she says she is.
"I would suggest that based on the above information that C is between 18 years old and 21 years old. Therefore she does not meet the criteria to be supported by the Merton Children Social Services under the 1989 Children act."
"This therefore means that if the Appellant could be 17, then she is equally possible from Dr Michie's assessment, for her to be 15 years of age or even 19 years of age. It is therefore difficult to follow how Dr Michie can conclude that in his opinion her age is consistent with the date of birth which she has given".