Paper short abstract

not used

Paper long abstract

The task of determining whether or not a foreign national is in need of asylum is notoriously difficult. Drawing upon empirical research into the procedure and determination of asylum appeals by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, this paper will consider how the tribunal handles and evaluates expert evidence produced by appellants in support of their cases to be at risk on return. Such evidence is normally of two different types: medical evidence concerning either the scarring on an individual’s body or their psychological condition and country evidence concerning the conditions in the country from which refuge is being sought. The paper will consider how the Tribunal, as a legal decision-maker, approaches such evidence and also discuss the criteria against which the Tribunal assesses the weight that can be attributed to it. The paper will also consider the ongoing debate between the Tribunal and the higher courts concerning the role of such evidence. It will be argued that improvements can be made as regards the preparation and presentation of such evidence before the Tribunal. At the same time, the Tribunal itself might wish to consider its handling of such evidence. In particular, some consideration needs to be given as to the process by which such evidence is presented to the Tribunal. In exploring these issues, it will be argued that, to a large degree, the controversy surrounding the treatment of such evidence illustrates the intrinsic difficulty of seeking to determine accurately who is and who is not a refugee.

Paper Download (244 KB)

Paper short abstract

not used

Paper long abstract

Little has been written about how the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005) works with respect to individuals who are suspected – but not charged – with committing terrorist-related activities. Such persons are indefinitely detained under ‘control orders’, a form of internal exile. This paper looks at the case of one such person.

Initially detained in late December 2006 ‘AP’ was released in July 2007 only to be placed under a control order in January 2008. In July 2008 his appeal against the Secretary of State came before the High Court and was refused. His subsequent appeal against the High Courts decision was largely refused. He therefore remains subject to a control order. I analyze the court proceedings to illustrate how the Prevention of Terrorism Act – with its reliance on a low standard of proof, trial without jury, admission of hear say evidence and reliance on Special Advocates – played out in AP’s appeal. I conclude that the Act makes it impossible to defend individuals detained under control orders and that it is corrosive of civil liberties.

Paper short abstract

not used

Paper long abstract

Country of origin information (COI) is an important form of evidence used within the asylum determination process. COI material consists of a variety of sources including reports produced by experts, news services, NGOs, government bodies and the UKBA's COI Service. Within this newly constructed field of knowledge, hierarchies of knowledge have developed.

This paper intends to map what hierarchies have developed and how sources have gained the status of being "objective".

Results will show how sources gain weight amongst the diverse stakeholders and why certain sources, such as expert reports, are more heavily scrutinized than others.

With the majority of UKBA caseowners mainly or solely relying on the UKBA COIS reports, this paper seeks to critique the concept of a definitive report on a given country. Organising knowledge in such a way as to make it the most "legible" form of information for UKBA caseowners, not only ensures the use of one-dimensional knowledge, but also allows for the increased possibility of the centralized management of decision-making. However, as this paper will demonstrate, these reports do not allow the level of complexity necessary to gain a holistic understanding of a country or an individual claim.

Paper Download (167 KB)

Paper short abstract

not used

Paper long abstract

Non-Governmental Organisations claim that barriers to being granted political asylum in Britain include unfair and incorrect decisions made by Home Office immigration caseworkers and judges.

The author has twenty years of experience of the human rights situation in Ethiopia, particularly that affecting Oromo people. Since 2000, he has written 200 expert witness reports for Ethiopians who had been refused asylum in the UK, of whom 137 were Oromo.

The results of an audit of the grounds used by the Home Office for refusing asylum in these cases, at the initial stage and at appeal, form the basis of this study.

Decision-makers attempt to discredit claims rather than establish their substance. Decisions are often based on inaccurate or distorted information and subjective assertions regarding an applicant's credibility which do not stand up to even superficial examination. The standard of reasoning is poor.

Expert reports are disregarded or discounted without reasonable justification.

The consequences of refusal of asylum claims are discussed with particular emphasis on the effects of refusal and detention on mental health.

The rationale behind the culture of disbelief which characterises asylum decision-making is discussed.

Paper Download (455 KB)