Five Errors the Courts Keep Finding in Age Assessments

What the RMCC's February 2026 briefing records about recent judgments

The Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium (RMCC) published a briefing on the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB) in February 2026. Much of it addresses policy and structure. For practitioners, though, the more immediately useful section is its summary of recent judgments, because the errors identified there are ones any assessing social worker can guard against, whoever employs them.

Reading across the cases the briefing cites, five themes recur.

1. The benefit of the doubt not applied. In the case of 'IA', the briefing reports that the judge found the assessment had failed to apply the principle, and that the lead assessor had not properly grasped the concept.

2. Little weight given to those who know the child best. In the same case, the briefing records that the assessment relied heavily on the view of a designated social worker who had met the child twice, while dismissing evidence from placement staff who had known him for longer and in a range of everyday settings, without a reasonable explanation for doing so.

3. Credibility-led reasoning. In 'ALK', the Upper Tribunal is reported to have found the assessment flawed in fundamental respects, including treating inconsistent dates of birth given to other officials as evidence of dishonesty, despite the circumstances of those interviews, transcription errors and a lack of translation. The briefing notes similar concerns about reliance on early intake records in R (SS) v SSHD.

4. Weak indicators treated as significant. Also in 'ALK', the briefing describes reliance on the eruption of wisdom teeth, alongside a conclusion that identity documents were forged without evidence to support it.

5. The 'minded to' stage approached as adversarial. In 'IA', the assessing social worker is reported to have accepted in cross-examination that he regarded the 'minded to' process as adversarial, which is contrary to guidance. The briefing also records findings that assessors had not observed the relevant principles for interviewing children who have experienced traumatic events.

None of these points are new. They restate what Merton and the case law following it have long required: that an age assessment is a holistic, fact-finding exercise carried out with an open mind, not a search for grounds to disbelieve. What the recent judgments summarised by the RMCC offer is a reminder of how those principles are tested when an assessment is scrutinised in court.

At Independent Migrant Services we deliver training on Merton-compliant age assessment for local authority teams and individual practitioners, covering evidence weighting, the benefit of the doubt and the conduct of the 'minded to' process. If your team would find that useful, do get in touch. info@independentmigrantservices.co.uk

The RMCC briefing on the National Age Assessment Board (February 2026) is available from the Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium.