Hosted by www.ijjo.org

Chapter 13 | Appeals: Processes and Outcomes
refused solely because the child is too young to
understand the situation or to have formed a well
founded fear of persecution. 14
It is clear from our analysis of the determinations
for February, May, and October 2004, that
adjudicators regularly permitted children as young
as 13 to give evidence and rarely stop children from
being cross examined by Home Office Presenting
Officers. In one case an adjudicator would not permit
the Home Office to cross examine a 12-year-old
Somali girl but then questioned her himself. 15 In an
example of better practice, a 16-year-old Liberian
girl who had been trafficked for child prostitution
was not required to give oral evidence and in another
case the adjudicator would only allow a 13-yearold
Somali girl to give her identity and confirm
her statement.
“All cases before an adjudicator are a lottery.
It tends to be full time adjudicators who hear
children’s appeals. I am not sure that that means
a great deal. Some in Manchester are not known
to have ever allowed an appeal.” 16
“We have very hard line adjudicators in North
Shields, some of whom never allow [appeals].” 17 165
Appeals: Processes and Outcomes | K’s Story
“K” was a 15-year-old boy from Cameroon who had suffered persecution throughout his childhood
because of the political activities of his older relatives. This included physical and sexual
assault. On the morning of his appeal hearing he heard that yet further relatives had been killed or
had disappeared when a social worker mistakenly disclosed this to him.
His reaction was to say spontaneously “They have taken
them all now.” The adjudicator gave permission for him
to remain outside the room whilst an older cousin gave
evidence. There was also a medical report which indicated
that he was too traumatized to provide cogent
evidence and expert evidence which indicated that older
members of his family had attracted persecution on
account of their political views. In addition, he had
provided a detailed statement of the limited knowledge
he had of his family’s political activities. (When he had
asked why they were being persecuted in the past, they
had told him that it was not safe for him to know more.)
Despite this the adjudicator dismissed his appeal taking
issue with the fact that he had not been tendered
for cross examination and stating that he could have
moved on his own (as a 15 year old) to another part
of Cameroon to avoid further persecution. The adjudicator
also doubted his credibility because he had not
left Cameroon at an earlier age of between six and 14. 18
“Generally the stories children tell are disjointed
and fragmented. Those without experience
[of giving evidence, like children] will give a
fragmented as opposed to a full and coherent
statement and adjudicators do not take this into
account. They hold against them the fact that
they have “neglected” to tell their full story.
Training for adjudicators [may help] but some
are untrainable. The problems are scepticism
and a prosecutorial attitude.” 19
Hosted by www.ijjo.org