HAM, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Brent

Philip Rule (instructed by Instalaw Solicitors) for the Claimant Joshua Swirsky (instructed by London Borough of Brent) for the Defendant Hearing date: 5 April 2022 ____________________

As is clear from paragraph 46, the specific issue was not decided in ZS ; it was not an issue before the court on that occasion. However, on closer consideration the authorities referred to in support of the proposition that, as a requirement of fairness, assessment must be undertaken by two social workers, AAM and J , do not make that proposition good. In her judgment in AAM at paragraph 94, Lang J stated as follows;

(2) The assessors did not conduct the interviews with an open mind. This, it is said, is the conclusion to be drawn from the opening sentences in Section 5 of the assessment document:

(4) The assessors placed too much reliance on their opinion of the Claimant's appearance and demeanour; not enough weight was given to aspects of the Claimant's appearance that suggested he was a child ( viz "no evidence of facial hair").

(5) The assessors incorrectly concluded that the Claimant was "reticent" as part of an attempt to avoid saying anything that might hinder his application. The assessors saw this as relevant to the Claimant's veracity and credibility. This was wrong since any reticence was (or was more likely to be) the consequence of previous traumatic events.