Chadian national fails to establish he was under 18 when first accommodated by Scottish local authority

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] CSOH 15
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lady Carmichael

Abdraman Ali Ahmat raised an action against Aberdeenshire Council seeking declarator that his date of birth was 10 November 2006, therefore placing a duty upon the defender to accommodate him as a child. The proceedings initially began as a petition for judicial review, but was transferred to proceed as an ordinary action after the Lord Ordinary took the view that the petition was incompetent.

The case was heard in the Outer House of the Court of Session by Lady Carmichael. Halliday, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Blockley, advocate, for the defender.

Never celebrated birthdays

The pursuer, a national of Chad, entered the UK by boat in June 2023. He was detained and interviewed at a processing facility in Dover, during which time he handed over a document which he averred was his birth certificate. The court granted commission and diligence for the recovery of that document, but the Home Office was no longer in possession of a paper or digital copy.

In July 2023 the defender’s social workers, Ms McDuma and Ms Waddell, carried out a brief age assessment whilst the pursuer was accommodated in a hotel in Aberdeenshire and concluded that the pursuer was over 18 at that time. The pursuer averred that, had he been accommodated as a child before his 18th birthday, he would have been entitled to remain in that accommodation until he reached the age of 21.

The pursuer’s evidence was that his date of birth was 10 November 2006, and he was “sixteen and something” when he left Chad. He had never celebrated his birthday as a child due to his family’s Islamic beliefs. His father obtained a birth certificate for him in 2016 at the request of his school. He denied having initially told immigration officers he had been born in 2003.

Counsel for the defender submitted that the pursuer’s evidence was not credible and reliable. The immigration officers had reached the view that he was aged 26 when they met him, and the combined observations of the defender’s social workers, who had considerable experience in age assessment, indicated that he was indeed over the age of 18 at that time.

Vague and evasive

In her decision, Lady Carmichael said of the picture created by the evidence: “The pursuer’s evidence is the only evidence that points positively to his being a child at the time he arrived in the United Kingdom, and to his date of birth being the one in relation to which he seeks declarator. I have no reason to, and do not, doubt the pursuer’s account that birthdays were not celebrated during his childhood, or that the practice of doing so was regarded as haram. In other respects, however, the evidence he gave about his age was not credible and reliable.”

She continued: “There was a contrast between his vague and evasive answers and demeanour when he was being asked about [his age and birth certificate] and his answers and demeanour relating to some other matters. He presented as engaged and confident when speaking about his attempts to cross the English channel, and gave a fairly detailed and vivid account of those events. I have taken into account the differences I observed in his demeanour in assessing his credibility.”

Noting that it was not the pursuer’s fault he was unable to produce the document taken by the Home Office, Lady Carmichael said: “There is no positive evidence to support the proposition that the pursuer’s date of birth is 10 November 2006. I am not deciding in these proceedings whether it was lawful for the defenders to reach a conclusion on the basis of a brief enquiry, rather than a more extensive assessment. I require to consider the evidence the witnesses provided in court and whether, and to what extent, it assists me in assessing where the balance of probabilities lies.”

She added: “Both Ms McDuma and Ms Waddell were social workers with a number of years of experience. They were generally credible and reliable witnesses as to fact. I had the clear sense that both felt a significant responsibility to try to identify people who were or might be children and who were being provided with accommodation as adults. Both worked in children’s services. Both had received training in relation to the assessment of age. I consider that they can be regarded as having some experience and training relevant to the assessment of age. All that said, however, I have not relied on the view that they formed about the pursuer’s age, or afforded it any weight.”

Lady Carmichael concluded: “The evidence that supports [the pursuer’s] proposition comes only from the pursuer, and I do not accept the material parts of his evidence as credible and reliable. No other evidence supports that proposition. It is highly unlikely that his date of birth is later than 10 November 2006. It is more likely than not that his date of birth is earlier than 10 November 2006. There is nothing in the evidence to enable me to make a positive finding as to what the pursuer’s age is, or what his date of birth is.”

Decree of absolvitor was therefore granted to the defender.