Northern Ireland's Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court finding that an asylum seeker, identified only as JR256, was an adult at the time he claimed to be a minor seeking asylum in the UK. The judgment, delivered on 12 May 2026 by Treacy LJ on behalf of a panel also comprising Horner LJ and Huddleston J, dismissed the appellant's challenge to an earlier decision by Colton J.

The case centred on conflicting age assessments. A Merton-compliant assessment carried out by Manchester City Council concluded that JR256 was an adult, placing him approximately seven years older than he claimed. JR256 subsequently moved from Manchester to Belfast, where he came to the attention of social services on 7 July 2021 and was placed in foster care. The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust conducted its own assessment, dated 2 December 2021, which accepted JR256's claimed date of birth of 17 February 2004, noting it was giving him the benefit of the doubt. The Home Office disputed that assessment on the basis that it had not engaged with the earlier Manchester findings.

The Court of Appeal found that Colton J had applied the correct legal framework, drawing on the principles established in R(B) v Merton London Borough Council and confirmed by the Supreme Court in R(A) v Croydon London Borough Council. Under that framework, where an age dispute remains unresolved, it falls to the court to determine the question on the evidence available. The court noted that no reliable documentary evidence of JR256's date of birth existed, and that age assessment in such cases is an inexact process.

The Manchester assessment drew on input from multiple named professionals, including allocated social workers Sarah Hembrough and Lucy Hall at Manchester City Council Children's Services, and Ciara Courtney, team leader at JR256's Manchester accommodation provider. All three raised concerns about JR256's physical appearance, demeanour, and behaviour, which they considered inconsistent with the age he claimed. The assessment also noted inconsistencies in JR256's account, including a different date of birth provided to French authorities, questions about his timeline, and the suggestion that French police had issued him with a deportation notice - which, if accurate, would indicate the French authorities considered him to be over 18.

The Court of Appeal set out in detail the criticisms Colton J had levelled at the Trust's assessment. The Trust's report did not engage with the Manchester findings, did not contact those who had conducted that earlier assessment, and accepted JR256's claim that the purpose of the Manchester assessment had not been explained to him - a claim the judge found to be wholly contradicted by the Manchester interview records. The Trust also failed to disclose its assessment to the Home Office until after legal proceedings had begun, and did not take up the opportunity, when legally represented before Colton J, to defend its approach.

The appellant's legal team, led by Hugh Southey KC, argued on appeal that Colton J had improperly compared the two reports rather than examining the underlying evidence, and that the Manchester assessment placed excessive weight on physical appearance. The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding that Colton J had conducted a meticulous analysis of the evidence and that the Manchester assessment had considered a broad range of factors including professional observations, JR256's personal history, background information, demeanour, and inconsistencies in his account.

The court also rejected a submission based on recent European Court of Human Rights decisions, including AC v France (application 15457/20, decided 16 January 2025) and Darboe and Camara v Italy, which the appellant argued established a presumption of minority and engaged Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in age assessment cases. The Court of Appeal found those authorities of limited assistance given that the factual determination in this case had been made on cogent evidence following a fair and detailed assessment process. The court concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the finding that JR256 was an adult, that no reasonable basis existed to overturn Colton J's factual conclusions, and that the appeal amounted to an attempt to relitigate findings properly made at first instance. All grounds of challenge were dismissed.