Northern Ireland's Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by an asylum seeker who claimed to be a minor, upholding a High Court finding that the appellant is an adult. The judgment, delivered on 12 May 2026 by Treacy LJ on behalf of a panel also comprising Horner LJ and Huddleston J, rejected all grounds of appeal.

The case centred on conflicting age assessments carried out by two separate bodies. Manchester City Council conducted a Merton-compliant assessment concluding the appellant, identified as HR256, was an adult - approximately seven years older than he claimed. After the appellant relocated to Belfast, the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust carried out a further assessment dated 2 December 2021, which accepted his claimed date of birth by applying the benefit of the doubt. The Secretary of State for the Home Department rejected the Trust's conclusion, relying on the earlier Manchester assessment and challenging the Trust's methodology.

The High Court had previously dismissed a judicial review application brought by the appellant. It found the Trust's assessment significantly flawed, citing its failure to engage with the Manchester assessment, disregard of multi-agency concerns, and uncritical acceptance of the appellant's account. The Manchester assessment, by contrast, was found to be comprehensive and supported by multiple experienced professionals, analysis of the appellant's history, and consideration of inconsistencies in his account. The High Court concluded the evidence overwhelmingly supported a finding that the appellant was an adult, and that the case was neither borderline nor finely balanced.

On appeal, the court considered three principal issues: whether the High Court erred in law or fact in its adult determination; whether it improperly preferred one assessment over another without adequately examining the underlying evidence; and whether the benefit of the doubt principle and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were correctly applied.

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that appellate courts may only interfere with factual findings where a conclusion is plainly wrong, unsupported by evidence, or affected by a material error of law. It rejected the appellant's argument that the High Court had simply preferred one report over another, finding instead that the High Court had carried out a detailed and meticulous evaluation of the evidence.

The court also rejected the argument that the benefit of the doubt principle had been misapplied, holding that the principle has no application where the evidence is clear and compelling. The Article 8 ECHR grounds were similarly dismissed, with the court finding that the judicial determination of age was based on a robust and proportionate assessment and did not breach the appellant's Convention rights.

All grounds of appeal were rejected and the High Court's decision was affirmed.