‘Disbar them!’ Fury over judges’ ‘ludicrous’ decision to treat balding migrant as child
A controversial ruling by immigration judges has ignited a fierce debate over the UK’s asylum system, with critics demanding immediate action against judges who allow adult asylum seekers to be treated as children. The case involves a Sudanese migrant, assessed by the Home Office to be between 23 and 25 years old, who was ruled by a tribunal to be a 16-year-old child, despite physical characteristics such as a “receding hairline,” “thick facial hair,” and “forehead wrinkles.”
The decision has prompted outrage among politicians and renewed calls for the introduction of scientific age assessment techniques, such as X-rays, to prevent migrants from exploiting the system. Reform UK MP Lee Anderson led the charge, stating, “Judges who allow fully grown adults to enter asylum programs as minors—at the taxpayer’s expense—must be removed and disbarred immediately.” He added, “The days of government corruption without consequences are over. Only Reform UK will hold these individuals accountable.”
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp also criticized the ruling, calling it “ludicrous” and warning of safeguarding risks. “This man was assessed by the Home Office as aged between 23 and 25—and now he might be placed in educational settings alongside teenage girls,” Philp said. “We are the only country in Europe not to use scientific age assessment techniques. The government must urgently introduce these tests to stop our system being made a mockery of by illegal immigrants falsely claiming to be under 18, aided by activist lawyers and weak judges.”
The Sudanese migrant arrived in the UK on September 6, 2023, after fleeing the war in Sudan and traveling through Libya, Tunisia, Italy, and France. He claimed to be 16 years old, but Home Office officials and Hounslow Council disputed this, citing his physical appearance and inconsistent answers about his age, name, and identity documents. Despite this, Judges Hugo Norton-Taylor and Sarah Pinder ruled in his favor, declaring his date of birth as April 3, 2007, and ordering Hounslow Council to treat him as a child under the Children Act 1989.
The judges based their decision on the migrant’s claim that he knew his age from his mother and had studied the Quran at a Khalwa (Islamic school). They also noted that a photograph from April 2024 showed “very light facial hair” and dismissed claims about his receding hairline and crow’s feet, stating they had not been asked to rule on those specifics.
Tory MP Jack Rankin expressed frustration, saying, “Each and every day, more dangerous precedent seems to be set. We should simply abolish immigration tribunals. If you lie about your age, you should be refused asylum, not supported by the state with £30k in legal fees and backed by activist judges.”
The case has also drawn attention to broader issues with human rights laws, particularly Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to family life. Home Office officials are reportedly examining how judges apply this law, with plans to identify loopholes that allow migrants and lawyers to abuse the system. A source told the *Daily Express*, “Too many foreign criminals have been allowed to stay for reasons which defy common sense.”
As the government faces mounting pressure to reform the asylum system, this case highlights the growing tension between human rights protections and the need for stricter immigration controls. With public trust in the system eroding, the call for scientific age assessments and judicial accountability is likely to grow louder in the coming months.
