The High Court granted leave for Aminat Shola Odunbaku to challenge an age assessment and related decisions in her asylum process, finding substantial grounds for a full hearing. The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Clarke on 1 February 2006, did not determine whether the assessment or later decisions were legally invalid.
Odunbaku, described in the case title as a minor suing through a next friend, said she was born on 8 September 1988. She arrived in Ireland unaccompanied in June 2003. Initial interviews by the Refugee Applications Commissioner (RAC) estimated her age at about 16 or 17. After a hostel social worker raised a concern that she might be over 18, the RAC reassessed her on 30 January 2004 and concluded she was an adult.
The RAC refused her asylum application in March 2004. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) later refused her appeal; the appeal was dealt with on paper, without an oral hearing. The Minister communicated the refusal on 22 September 2004. Odunbaku also applied for humanitarian leave to remain, but this judgment does not decide that application.
Justice Clarke said the leave application was well outside the 14-day period, but that exceptional circumstances justified extending time if substantial grounds were established. He referred to procedures identified in an earlier judgment, including explaining the purpose and reasons for an age assessment and giving the applicant an opportunity to respond. He found substantial grounds to argue that those procedures were not followed: the reasons for the adverse assessment, including the hostel social worker’s view, may not have been put to Odunbaku, and she may not have been told how to seek a further assessment or present expert evidence.
The court also considered whether the age decision could have affected the asylum process. Justice Clarke said age could materially affect how inconsistencies and credibility were assessed, particularly where the claimed and assessed ages differed by at least three years. He found it arguable that the age assessment had affected the RAC’s and RAT’s decisions, and granted leave to challenge those decisions as well.
This was a leave-stage ruling only. The court expressed no view beyond whether the challenges had sufficient grounds to proceed. The judgment’s concluding section addresses leave to challenge the RAC’s asylum decision and the RAT appeal decision; it does not state a final order disposing of the Minister’s later humanitarian-leave application.