Dastan Ibrahimi, from Iran, arrived in the UK in 2021 and in 2023 applied to the council for accommodation as a child under the age of 18 having previously been living in Liverpool, reports our sister title The Herald.
After an age assessment, Glasgow City Council determined he was over the age of 18 and refused his request, after which Mr Ibrahimi brought a petition for judicial review which was refused.
That was appealed to the inner house of the Court of Session, which issued its verdict on Tuesday.
READ NEXT:
Towering student flats will ‘destroy’ setting of fire-ravaged Mackintosh masterpiece
Man did ‘daft thing’ after cops smelled cannabis in his car
Man struck stranger with dog chain and threw bricks in car park
Mr Ibrahimi was assessed by two social workers on July 18, 2023, with an interpreter present on the phone for the interview portion.
When asked about his date of birth he stated that it was 13 January 2006, but was informed the social workers had concluded he was over the age of 18 based on factors such as his appearance, demeanour, and interaction with the social workers.
The following day Mr Ibrahimi received a letter stating: “In this instance, on the basis of a visual assessment of your appearance, demeanour and a brief enquiry with the assistance of an interpreter, it is our opinion that your appearance and demeanour strongly suggest that you are significantly over 18 years of age.
“It is not the intention, therefore, of the Local Authority to undertake a full assessment of age and in our opinion you should be treated as an adult. We have informed the Immigration Officers responsible for your case and they will now be responsible for making arrangements for you.”
The council stated that Mr Ibrahimi had given his date of birth as 2002 upon arrival in the UK, while he argued that he had done so on the advice of his uncle to avoid being placed into foster care on arrival.
READ NEXT:
Man kicked off at police in Glasgow hospital
Man stole mum’s bank card and smashed her window with brick
Shop told to remove parcel lockers over ‘disturbance’ concerns
Drunk driver SEVEN times over the limit before crash tells court – ‘I’m not guilty’
His appeal relied on the submission that the outer house of the Court of Session had been wrong to find his petition was academic as in the absence of a reduction of the age assessment decision he would be forced to go through life with the wrong date of birth, which would affect his asylum claim.
Mr Ibrahimi’s submission also said the outer house had erred in stating that adequate reasons were given, claiming that two letters regarding the decision were inconsistent.
It also stated that the Lord Ordinary had failed to hold Glasgow City Council’s decision irrational as it relied upon the lack of full disclosure of his asylum claim – all that had been missing was his port reference number, a point easily explained, the submission argued, by the fact he did not have his papers with him.
Lady Wise, Lord Clark, and Lady Carmichael accepted that the application for judicial review was not academic, as “it cannot be said that the age assessment will have no practical effect”.
The claim on adequate reasons was dismissed as “it is clear from the decision letter that the reclaimer’s appearance and demeanour were of themselves sufficient for the view to be reached that he was significantly over the age of 18”.
The ground of procedural unfairness was ruled to be “without merit”, and the decision was ruled not to be irrational, which would have to be “a conclusion that no reasonable authority could have reached”.
Social workers had assessed that Mr Ibrahimi had a fully developed Adam’s apple, consistent with an adult male, an angled face which was inconsistent with a 17-year-old, and a fully developed physique unlike that of a 17-year-old.
The court therefore accepted that the appeal to the inner house was not academic or hypothetical, but rejected all other claims.