Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Tribunal experts fear attacks on integrity
6 November 2008
Home Office accused of routinely denigrating academic expertise. Melanie Newman reports
Academics working as expert witnesses in asylum and immigration tribunals say their integrity and expertise is being routinely denigrated as the courts come under pressure to deny people entry to the UK.
One tribunal was forced to apologise to a University of Oxford academic last month after he threatened to sue for libel over comments made in a draft judgment.
The draft judgment said that Alan George's evidence should "be treated with caution" by the tribunal in future. A later tribunal referred to the remarks as evidence that it was entitled to have "fears about his objectiveness".
Both remarks have now been withdrawn, with the initial tribunal "sincerely apologising" to Dr George.
The case involved a single mother from Lebanon who was appealing against a deportation order. Of the 20-page final judgment, six pages were devoted to "difficulties" with Dr George's evidence, including references to comments made by other tribunals. The tribunal allowed the appeal.
Dr George said the case exemplified the worsening treatment of expert witnesses by judges and Home Office representatives.
Last year, 14 Middle East experts, including seven academics, wrote to Sir Henry Hodge, president of the asylum and immigration tribunal, noting that Home Office lawyers "routinely resort to attacking the integrity and credentials of experts". Sir Henry replied saying he had seen "no evidence" of widespread abuse of expert witnesses.
George Joffe, visiting professor of geography at King's College London and one of the letter's signatories, said he now tried to avoid going to court, though he still produced expert witness reports.
"If the Home Office presenting officers lack experience of a country, they will argue a personal case against the witness," he said. He recounted a case in which he was asked how many attacks had taken place on a certain road in Iraq. Because he could not answer, the tribunal "dismissed his evidence", he said.
"It's getting worse because there's a supposition on the part of the courts that they have to send people back," he said. "Before 2003, the bench wouldn't allow people to be really abused by Home Office officers or counsel. After the war on Iraq, things became much more difficult."
Abbas Shiblak, a research fellow at Oxford's Refugee Studies Centre, said the Home Office officials routinely attempted to apply "the standards of liberal democracy" when it came to proof of torture.
"They ask questions such as 'Why didn't you get a certificate from your GP?' or 'Why didn't you make a formal complaint?' which ignore the reality of the situation," he said.
Government representatives also ignore sources such as human rights agencies in favour of official reports that "set out promises but do not reflect what is actually happening", Dr Shiblak said.
He said he had been personally accused of being partial because of his Palestinian origins. "The judge went along with (the notion) that I had a partisan attitude without challenging the substance of my report," he said.
A spokesperson for the UK Border Agency said that staff representing the agency must assist the immigration judge by testing the evidence of an expert witness, which could require scrutinising a witness' experience and understanding. "Any specific allegations that an officer acting on behalf of the UK Border Agency has not met professional standards ... will be taken seriously and subjected to full investigation," the spokesperson added.
melanie.newman@tsleducation.com.
Readers' comments
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal determines all cases based on the law and the specific evidence in a particular appeal; it does not operate with any presumption of what the outcome should be. Judicial independence ensures that the Tribunal approaches each case impartially.
So perhaps the Judicial Commission / AIT should publish figures of dismissed and allowed appeals in a given period (by Immigration Judge), so that it would be possible to test whether it is consistent or a lottery as to which judge one appears before?
Having been a Home Office Presenting Officer and now working in HE for the last 2 years, I can understand the apprehension of our Academics and experts providing expert reports and opinions where there is the perception that that evidence may be attacked and criticised. From my own experiences, Immigration Judges have approached the evidence of experts with a balanced view and due consideration, however there have been numerous instances where Expert Reports submitted as evidence have been proven to be not so expert after all and it is perhaps due to that that Immigration Judges and Presenting Officers may appear to approach some evidence with caution. I think it is unfair to say that "If a Presenting Officer lacks experience of a country they will argue a personal case against a witness" as it is simply the case that there are countries in the world where it is very difficult to obtain information. It is even difficult for Human Rights agencies to gain access to countries. In those circumstances, the credibility of witnesses needs to be tested. It is of course important to remember that the burden of proof in Asylum and Immigration tribunals is much lower than in Criminal Cases and is measured on the balance of probabilities.
@Peter Farr and the last anonymous contributors can only talk as people who have operated within the system(Asylum and Immigration), and who never have to face either the consequences of an immigration decision or an unfair trial in any other aspect of their lives. it would be unfair to say that all judges are enforcers for the home office, still if we have no way of analyzing the number of appeals dismissed and the reasons given for the decisions, one might well think that they are hiding something! <p>I remember one judge questioning the credibility report of a doctor representing me at an appeal even if the home office itself has used the same doctor in other cases they wanted to argue against, isn't it troubling that the judge perceives the testimony of this Doctor good when it suits the home office and criticizes it when it goes against it? <p>Of course for most of the people appealing against the Home office decisions, or their judges, very few have the means to actually make a meaningful challenge like me, only a couple are lucky to get a committed legal team which get us to hear of some of the hard fought cases( The Lebanese lady facing deportation with her child).