The High Court quashed a 2003 age assessment of an unaccompanied asylum applicant, finding that officials did not follow minimum fair-procedure safeguards. It refused to quash the later recommendation that he should not be declared a refugee.
In a judgment delivered on 6 October 2005, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan found that the applicant, Andy Moke, had not been told why officials doubted his claimed age, given a chance to address those concerns, or informed of the possibility of reassessment. The decision and its reasons were not provided to him in writing.
Moke, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, arrived in Ireland on 27 February 2003. He claimed to have been born on 1 November 1986 and to be under 18. Two officials assessed him as an adult, and he was placed in adult accommodation in Cork. The judge did not determine whether his claimed age was correct; she noted that the respondent accepted he was a young and vulnerable person whether under or over 18.
The court set out minimum safeguards for an initial assessment: explain the interview’s purpose; tell the applicant the reasons for doubting the claimed age and allow a response; raise concerns about any identity document offered; clearly communicate an adverse decision and its reasons; and explain any reassessment process and how to access it. The judge found those safeguards had not been met in Moke’s case. She said important information should be provided in writing and in a language the applicant can understand.
The respondent had objected that Moke waited too long to challenge the February 2003 assessment. The judge declined to refuse relief on that basis, taking account of his claimed minority, vulnerability, lack of family support in Ireland, and delay in receiving assistance from the Refugee Legal Service. The proceedings began on 4 May 2004. The court did not decide whether Moke was in fact a minor.
The separate challenge concerned the respondent’s report and recommendation under section 13 of the Refugee Act 1996 that Moke should not be declared a refugee. The judge found the invalid age assessment did not, on the grounds and evidence presented, establish that the asylum report was issued without jurisdiction or in excess of power. Moke had made no complaint that he was treated unfairly at his January 2004 asylum interview. The court therefore refused to quash the section 13 report and recommendation.