ZHB v Cardiff City Council: age assessments, Article 8 and the limits of Darboe

In ZHB v Cardiff City Council [2026] EWHC 913 (Admin), Mr Justice Coppel dismissed a judicial review challenging the lawfulness of an age assessment conducted by Cardiff City Council in October 2023. The assessment concluded that ZHB — an Iranian national who arrived in the UK by small boat in October 2022 claiming to be 16 — was in fact an adult born on 20 October 2001. The claim rested on two grounds: breach of Article 8 ECHR and breach of the duty under s. 7(2) of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 to have due regard to Part 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Article 8 and the procedural safeguards question

The claimant argued that the European Court of Human Rights had, in Darboe v Italy (2023) 76 EHRR 5 and subsequent cases, laid down minimum procedural guarantees applicable to all age assessments: the appointment of a legal representative or guardian, access to a lawyer, and informed participation. He submitted that Cardiff's failure to appoint a guardian or ensure legal representation at interview was an absolute breach, regardless of practical impact.

Coppel J rejected that reading. His analysis of Darboe, Diakitè v Italy, TK v Greece, AC v France and FB v Belgium (2026) 82 EHRR 2 establishes that Article 8 imposes a positive obligation to take reasonable steps — with a margin of appreciation — rather than mandating a fixed checklist. The "minimum procedural guarantees" enumerated in §156 of Darboe reflected Italian domestic and EU law requirements at the time; they were not universal prescriptions. The single universal minimum, in Coppel J's view, is informed participation in the assessment process.

On the facts, the Council had treated ZHB as a looked-after child throughout, provided a TGP youth worker advocate, engaged NYAS as an Appropriate Adult at every session, arranged independent interpretation, and ensured ZHB was aware he could consult his asylum solicitors. The Appropriate Adult intervened meaningfully — pausing the "minded to" discussion at a sensitive moment and facilitating a complaint about one of the social workers. The absence of a formally appointed guardian caused no discernible prejudice; no step a guardian would have taken went untaken. Ground 1 was dismissed.

The CRC due regard duty and the 2022 Act

Cardiff disputed the applicability of s. 7(2) on the basis that the assessment was conducted under s. 50 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, not the 2014 Act. Coppel J agreed. The 2022 Act created a distinct, streamlined regime for age assessments — imposing reporting obligations to the Secretary of State, regulating scientific methods, providing for standardised procedural safeguards by regulation and, once in force, a First-tier Tribunal appeal route with legal aid. To treat a local authority's age assessment as simultaneously falling under the 2014 Act would frustrate Parliament's purpose and produce arbitrary distinctions between cases.

Even had the s. 7(2) duty applied, Coppel J held it would have been satisfied. The Council applied the Welsh Government's own Age Assessment Toolkit — itself produced with the CRC in mind — and in substance respected Articles 3 and 12 CRC through advocacy, interpretation and informed participation. Notably, the court declined to treat the Committee on the Rights of the Child's General Comments or its "Views" in NBF v Spain as determinative of what the CRC requires, reaffirming that domestic courts have no jurisdiction to interpret unincorporated treaty obligations and that Committee pronouncements carry no binding legal force.

The judgement is significant for local authorities across England and Wales conducting age assessments. It confirms that Darboe does not mandate a particular form of representation in every case, and that compliance with Article 8 remains a fact-sensitive enquiry in which the quality and effectiveness of existing safeguards — including an Appropriate Adult — will be assessed in the round.