Home Office Slammed By Hundreds of Charities for Using AI to Assess If Migrant Kids Are Adults

Britain's plans to use artificial intelligence to help assess the age of young asylum seekers have sparked fierce criticism from hundreds of charities and refugee organisations, which warn the technology could wrongly classify vulnerable children as adults.

The proposal, backed by the Home Office, is intended to support age assessments when officials have doubts about whether an asylum seeker is under or over 18. However, critics argue that AI-driven facial analysis lacks sufficient accuracy and could have serious consequences for children seeking refuge in the UK.

According to reporting by The Guardian, more than a hundred refugee children's organisations have signed a letter opposing the government's plans, describing them as deeply concerning and urging ministers to abandon the initiative.

The coalition of charities argues that age assessment is a complex process that should not be reduced to an algorithmic analysis of facial features.

In their letter, campaigners warned that the technology risks producing inaccurate results that could lead to children being treated as adults within the immigration system. They also questioned whether facial age-estimation tools can account for differences in ethnicity, trauma, nutrition, and individual development.

Fears Children Could Be Misclassified

At the centre of the controversy is the concern that genuine child asylum seekers could be incorrectly classified as adults.

Campaigners warn that such mistakes could result in children being placed in adult accommodation or detention settings, potentially exposing them to harm.

Age assessments have become an increasingly contentious issue in asylum policy, with the government seeking new methods to tackle cases where officials suspect applicants may have misrepresented their age.

However, child welfare advocates insist that any system must prioritise safeguarding over administrative efficiency.

Kamena Dorling, co-chair of the Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium, relayed a widely shared sentiment: 'The government's proposals are deeply concerning. AI cannot account for the factors that can significantly affect a young person's appearance after fleeing conflict and persecution and undertaking dangerous journeys, including trauma, malnutrition, and exhaustion.

'Existing evidence also shows that AI faces the same problems with bias and inaccuracy as human decision-making, with similar patterns of errors.'

Similarly, Kama Petruczenko, a senior policy analyst at the Refugee Council and member of the consortium, said: 'The government's own figures already show that hundreds of children are being wrongly treated as adults following flawed visual assessments at the border, with devastating consequences for their safety and wellbeing.

'AI and facial age estimation technology are not a simple or risk-free answer to these longstanding problems. Poor image quality and bias in datasets can also affect accuracy.

'There is a real danger that this technology creates a false sense of certainty in decisions that are already extremely difficult to get right. If flawed assessments are simply automated, more children could end up wrongly placed in adult accommodation, detention centres or even prisons.'

Home Office Defends Technology Trial

The Home Office has defended the proposal, arguing that technology could provide an additional tool to support decision-making rather than replace existing assessment procedures.

'For too long, adult migrants making false age claims have exploited the system and diverted vital support away from children at risk,' said Alex Norris, the UK's minister for border security and asylum.

'That is why we are rolling out AI technology to put a stop to this, ensuring those who game the system are identified, detained, and removed without delay, and those who deserve support and protection are given it.'

Officials have maintained that no single method would be used in isolation and that age-disputed cases would continue to undergo broader review processes.

The government has increasingly explored technological solutions within immigration enforcement as part of wider efforts to strengthen border controls and improve processing efficiency.

Ministers have also argued that robust age-assessment procedures are necessary to protect genuine child asylum seekers and maintain confidence in the asylum system.

Growing Debate Over AI in Public Services

The dispute reflects broader concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in public decision-making.

Experts have repeatedly warned that AI systems can inherit biases from training data and may perform differently across demographic groups. Civil liberties organisations have therefore called for greater scrutiny before such tools are deployed in sensitive areas involving children and vulnerable populations.

The debate has intensified as governments around the world explore AI-powered systems for everything from policing and welfare administration to immigration management.

Critics argue that technologies affecting fundamental rights should meet particularly high standards of transparency, accountability, and accuracy.

Pressure Mounts on Ministers

With opposition continuing to grow, campaigners are urging ministers to halt the proposal and consult more closely with child protection specialists, refugee organisations, and independent experts.

The coalition of charities argues that age assessments should remain rooted in professional judgement rather than emerging technologies whose limitations are still being debated.

For supporters of the proposal, technological assistance could help address persistent challenges within the asylum system. For critics, however, the risks are simply too great when the outcome could determine whether a young asylum seeker is treated as a child or an adult.

As the row escalates, pressure is mounting on the government to demonstrate that any new technology used in immigration decision-making is both accurate and fair, particularly when the welfare of vulnerable children is at stake.