Report of the interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee is published
The significant report of the interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee (AESAC) on scientific methodologies for assessing the age of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) was published yesterday by the Home Office.
You can download the 86-page report here or read it online here.
AESAC is formed of 9 independent members and was established in December 2021 to provide advice to the Home Office Chief Scientific Adviser. It was asked to advise on age assessment methods that could be implemented within 12 to 18 months to support the existing methods, which are compliant with the guidance in the High Court judgment of B v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin).
The Committee's report considers biological methods utilising dental and skeletal development that have already been widely tested for the assessment of age in the UK and internationally in both the immigration system and the criminal justice system.
To jump straight to the report's key findings, AESAC says in concluding: "The committee recommends that biological age assessment should be carried out using a combination of; radiography of the third molar, radiography of the hand/wrist or MRI [Magnetic Resonance Imaging] of the knee, and MRI of the clavicle. This is based on the substantial body of research published in peer reviewed scientific literature, age assessment based on both dental and skeletal development."
AESAC continues in concluding: "The committee recognises the risk and harm of using ionising radiation and recommends that the use of ionising radiation in age assessment should be limited, with the ultimate aim of eradication and research into the use of non-ionising radiation imaging, such as MRI, should be supported."
The report advocates a likelihood ratio approach when using biological evidence of age to discern whether this is more likely than the asylum seeker's claimed age, which is said to be an approach widely recognised as the appropriate way to summarise evidence in favour of two alternative hypotheses.
AESAC says that biological assessment of age should be used to consider whether the age claimed by an asylum seeker is 'possible' rather than being used to answer the specific question of how old the person is or whether they are under or over 18 years of age.
Media coverage of the report in the Guardian and The I focused on the Committee's finding that the use of X-rays (which produce ionising radiation) must be limited due to the risk, even though the risk is considered small. MRI is recommended instead when and where possible.
The report explains: "MRI is the preferred imaging method due to its safety through the absence of ionising radiation and there is sufficient evidence to support the use of MRI for assessment of age using the knee and clavicle. However, it should be acknowledged that MRI is not suitable for all individuals, for example if they have significant metal or dental implants or in cases where the process of MRI is found to be distressing through claustrophobia or an aversion to noise. […] The risk of harm from radiography of the teeth or hand/wrist is minimal when compared to the lifelong benefits that could result from a swifter and more accurate age assessment in terms of both safeguarding and wellbeing. However, the interim committee urges a move away from the use of radiography as soon as the research evidence makes it feasible to do so."
More generally, the Committee stresses that age assessment is not infallible and probably never can be. AESAC said: "The relationship between chronological age (time elapsed since birth) and biological age (changes to body tissues with age), psychological age (maturation of the mind) or behavioural age is not, and likely never will be, a perfect correlation. The reasons for this are well documented and include general health, genetics, nutrition and life experiences. Therefore, it must be accepted that there is no infallible method for either biological or social-worker-led age assessment that will provide a perfect match to chronological age."
AESAC added: "Any methodology used for the assessment of age should respect and prioritise the health and wellbeing of the individual, upholding their dignity and right to choose, and minimising any health risk, whether physical or psychological, to the individual being assessed. Experience within the committee identified that there may be many reasons why a UASC may choose not to give consent for biological age assessment that is not linked to concealment of chronological age."
The Committee recommends that asylum seekers should be free to refuse to undergo biological age assessment, and recommends that there should be no automatic assumptions about a person's age if they refuse. According to The Times, Home Secretary Suella Braverman is expected to overrule this recommendation. A government source told The Times: "Clearly it’s not tenable that a migrant who is claiming to be a child can simply refuse to undergo a scientific age assessment."
The report's 14 recommendations provide a usefully concise summary of the report's lengthy and complex findings. They are as follows:
1. If biological age assessment is implemented it should be used to assess whether the age claimed by UASC is possible.
2. Research into the accuracy and reliability of the Merton-compliant process should be undertaken as a piece of urgent baseline research.
3. Any methodology used for the assessment of age must respect and prioritise the dignity of the individual being assessed and should minimise physical or psychological harm.
4. Biological age assessment can be carried out using an appropriate combination of dental and skeletal methods; assessment of development of the third molar using radiography, radiography of the hand/wrist or MRI of the knee, and MRI of the clavicle.
5. The use of ionising radiation must be limited, with the ultimate aim of eradicating its use. Continuing research into the use of non-ionising imaging, such as MRI, should be supported.
6. Where possible, the radiation dose should be limited through the use of recent pre-existing images, providing consent for the use of these images for age assessment had been freely obtained.
7. Further research into the impact of socioeconomic factors and their effect on growth and maturational timing, particularly those factors likely to be experienced by UASC, should be supported.
8. Dental and bone images should be acquired by those with the relevant training and expertise and reported by those with expertise in interpreting images for age estimation.
9. A guide should be developed on how to deal with those situations where there is a discrepancy between the claimed/suspected age and the biological or social worker-led evaluation outputs which makes clear what weight should be placed on different sources of information.
10. Consider adopting a likelihood ratio approach, using biological evidence of age, to compare the weight of evidence or 'support' for the Merton assigned age versus the claimed age.
11. UASC should be provided with clear information explaining the risks and benefits of biological evaluation in a format that allows the person undergoing the process to give informed consent and no automatic assumptions or consequences should result from refusal to consent.
12. Further research to gauge the differential impact of the proposed age assessment processes on UASC with respect to the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 should be undertaken.
13. Research into biological age assessment methods based on a wide range of ethnic or geographical sub-groups to confirm and improve accuracy and applicability of these methods should be supported.
14. A watching brief should be maintained over the development of emerging age estimation methods including, but not restricted to, facial images and DNA methylation.
The Home Office said it would now consider AESAC's recommendations.
A Home Office spokesperson was quoted by The I newspaper as saying: "Through our Nationality and Borders Act, we will introduce new scientific methods to assess the age of asylum seekers and resolve age disputes. This will bring a more consistent and robust approach to age assessments and help prevent asylum-seeking adults from claiming to be children, or children being wrongly treated as adults – in turn helping prevent safeguarding risks and stopping abuse of the system. We welcome the report from the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee and will now consider the recommendations – further details will be set out in due course."
Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said in response to the AESAC report: "We welcome the interim committee’s confirmation that scientific age assessments are not a stand-alone solution, that they are not risk-free, and that they should be used with extreme caution alongside other methods rather than on their own. The interim committee has correctly recognised that children may have many reasons not to give their consent for biological age assessments that are not linked to the concealment of their age. This finding mirrors the experience we have at the Refugee Council when we support children who are age-disputed."