7.6 Appropriate Recognition of the Age of Young People “There is no magic in age assessment. Assessment is just that; no more than opinion, which can be best achieved by professionals trained in the various fields, and not just trained as social workers, obtaining a view of the person over a number of sessions.” Extract from the Judgment in KN v Barnet 100 At any time, HBF clinicians will be working with a number of young people with a history of trafficking, whose age is disputed by the authorities. For young, unaccompanied people flawed age assessment procedures and a disproportionate emphasis on their age in preference to the consideration of their individual needs and vulnerability, can significantly damage their sense of self-esteem and personal identity and can potentially place them at risk of harm. In the collective experience of HBF clinicians who have worked with many young people over decades of clinical practice, the age of a person is not determinative of their personal maturity, nor their ability to cope with the challenges and situations that they face. This is determined by a wide range of factors including genetic determinants of personality, the quality of their parenting and other early developmental relationships and the sum of their life experiences. It is important to acknowledge also that the appearance of a young person in terms of how old they appear to be, can be misleading. From a developmental point of view, the “cut off ” point between the “minor” age of 17 and the “majority” age of 18, which is so often a determining factor for the entire future of young people who are without their parents and subject to immigration control, is arbitrary. It has no bearing on the vulnerability or individual needs of any young person who has been, or is at risk of, human trafficking. With regard to physical examination for assessment of age, HBF echoes the concerns of the Royal College of Radiologists that, “all x-rays have some radiation risk and to perform an x-ray procedure on a child for no other reason than to assess their age could theoretically be regarded as an assault” 101 and also the British Dental Association’s position statement that they are “vigourously opposed to the use of dental X-rays to determine whether asylum seekers have reached 18”. 102 103 HBF considers all other assessments which involve physical examination to be intrusive. As exact determination of age is not possible 104 and age assessments are most likely to happen in cases where a young person is unaccompanied, without status in the country and lacking the support of family, it is HBF’s view that physical age assessments can discriminate against those who are vulnerable. Any age assessment of a victim of trafficking should be: – In-depth, resulting from multiple sessions with the victim105 – Conducted in a way that is conducive to the victim’s individual needs. – Conducted so that it takes full account of the specific trafficking aspects of each individual case - The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 - The Health of Refugee Children: Guidelines for paediatricians - - - The Queen ((on the application of KN, by her litigation friend JA) v LB Barnet, EWHC 2019 (Admin), 64 (2011). - 96 Age Assessment Practice Guidance: An Age Assessment Pathway for Social Workers in Scotland