Trattare il richiedente asilo con la “barba sana” come un bambino, comanda il giudice

> He later woke up and found “to his amazement” he was in Folkestone where he gave immigration officials false names and dates of birth, ranging from 1996 to 2007.

> Upper Tribunal Judge Gaenor Bruce rejected the suggestion that signs of “recent shaving, a noticeable Adam’s apple, a fine moustache, beard growth and a five o’clock shadow” proved he was then older than 18.

> He explained to the assessors that he had been regularly shaving since [arriving in] Libya, in an effort to make his facial hair thicker, because he likes it.

> Two Home Office staff had “assessed his physical appearance and demeanour to very strongly suggest that he is significantly over 18 years of age”. Two Border Force staff also concluded that “he was in fact 28 years old”. Two social workers thought he was “likely aged between 22 and 25”.

> he went on to insist he was born in April 2007, making him 16 years and 11 months old when he arrived here in March 2024.

What an absolute joke.

Judges making these calls need to be on the hook for child endangerment. The benefit of the doubt cannot ever mean compromising the safety of vulnerable groups.

I mean to be fair several of the boys in my year at school by 16 had beards. So while it is suspicious the judge is right it isn’t conclusive. 

Worked at youth club. We get a briefing that we getting a vulnerable new youth joining, their parents were killed in war in Iraq.

They arrive with a social service support worker. Supposedly 16. Full grown adult walks in with a full beard.

We were absolutely stunned. We were all ready to be super supportive to this traumatised child but now we have this massive safeguarding issue. It was a uniformed group and we also did sports so used changing room facilities.

Obviously we refused to let adults use the changing rooms when the youths were changing so now what do we do with this “child”.

We couldn’t reject them because that would be discrimination but they were clearly not a child. It was an absolute nightmare.

Is there currently a worse newspaper than the Telegraph?

My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong anyone, is there aren’t really any definitive age testing methods at our disposal?

You can’t discount conditions which may lead to developmental signifiers being out of whack – for example looking at tooth development and loss of baby teeth, there are some people who just never develop adult teeth at all.
Even without recognised conditions, the range and spectrum of development progress can be pretty varied. Eg. Some girls hit puberty early and menstruate at 9yo, others not until they’re 15. Height, width, bone density and thickness, etc. – none of it is truly exclusionary. Especially if you factor in the likelihood of environmental factors known to impact development like malnutrition, abuse, and trauma.

But actually yeah, you could probably measure all these various pieces of data, and create a calculation which will then spit out a “probability of being under 18” value. I think many would then consider that an acceptable metric to aid in decision making, even if it isn’t certain and perfect.

However… are we really going to set a whole raft of testing and medical professionals on everyone who shows up claiming to be under 18 and objects to our initial assessment? Because I don’t think they’re going to stop chancing it because of that. Even if you argue the cost of asylum claims and benefits may be more, this is a huge upfront cost we’re talking.
And doctors and dentists don’t really want to be doing that shit. I imagine there are those who understandably feel that the hypocratic oath doesn’t really align with “calculating a statistical cut off point determining which teenagers to send back to Syria”. I mean I’m sure some would do it for a good fee, but again we’re upping the cost.

Social workers and a checklist on the other hand – much cheaper. Then if someone manages substantial kickback, like in this case, judge.
They don’t want to set a precedent that anything beyond that it necessary, because then they’re opening up a can of worms.

It does seem strange that the judge went against the professionals who advised otherwise in this case. But while “stupid and/or open borders enthusiast” is a possibility… judges are supposed to base their decisions on legal wording and cases that set the precedent. I’d be more interested in his rationale here, than whether we all think this individual having sufficient stubble is a knock down argument for under 18 or not.

Honestly I’ve always felt really bad for the social workers who have to do these assessments.

We can all sit here and go “eh sounds like some economic migrant Algerian chancer trying to pull a fast one, will probably end up in organised crime if he will lie and cheat about this as well…”. But the whole reason they use social workers is they are supposed to be good at being aware of their own biases and being compassionate but fair.
So they have to either tell these sobbing young people they’re liars and being sent back to a dangerous shithole, or not, while aware that the sobbing may well be a big manipulation tactic, but also remaining compassionate. Also aware that making the wrong call makes you a monster or a bleeding-heart moron in the eyes of various others, and basing it off criteria you know full well are largely arbitrary.
Someone has to do it, but… Jesus.