A new decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has considered the expert evidence that can be adduced in such hearings. The issue concerned allegations of torture in Sri Lanka of members of Tamil political groups.

The duties of experts when providing evidence to courts and tribunals have been the subject of numerous judicial pronouncements over time. Their role in country guidance cases is of obvious significance. We reiterate the importance to be attached to the duties set out in paragraph 10 of the Senior President of Tribunal’s Practice Directions 2010, as amended, and as cited in MOJ and Others (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC), at paragraph 25 and AAW (expert evidence – weight) Somalia [2015] UKUT 673 (IAC), at paragraph 24:

(i) to provide information and express opinions independently, uninfluenced by the litigation;(ii) to consider all material facts, including those which might detract from the expert witness’ opinion;(iii) to be objective and unbiased;
(iv) to avoid trespass into the prohibited territory of advocacy;
(v) to be fully informed;
(vi) to act within the confines of the witness’s area of expertise; and (vii) to modify, or abandon one’s view, where appropriate
.”

In general terms, the weight to be attributed to expert evidence will correlate to the experience, reputation and authority of the author; the methodology employed and the seriousness of investigations undertaken; the use of appropriate sources; the extent to which their conclusions are consistent, both internally and as regards external sources; and the impartiality and objectivity of the expert (see NA v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1272, at paragraph 120).”

Still on the theme of a lack of knowledge displayed by certain sources, it is in our view surprising, to say the least, that one of the two journalist sources interviewed appeared to believe that torture did not occur in Sri Lanka, contrary to the overwhelming weight of expert evidence and country information. In respect of the IOM’s [International Organisation for Migration] view that allegations of discrimination against Tamils made by members of that community were being put forward to serve their “own ends”, Mr Stares frankly accepted that this answer appeared to be “quite stark”: we agree. It does not, on its face, sit happily with that organisation’s stated impartiality.”

Full judgment here.