Site icon swarb.co.uk

MB (Admissible Evidence; Interview Records) Iran: UTIAC 18 Apr 2012

1. R (Dirshe) v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 421, [2005] 1WLR 2685, is not authority for the proposition that where a claimant requests tape-recording of an interview, but that is not carried out, the record is inadmissible.
2. Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 has no application to the admissibility of asylum interview records, immigration proceedings being of a distinct nature to criminal proceedings. Admission of interview records does not breach a claimant’s right to a fair trial.
3. Tribunals do not have a general discretion to refuse to receive relevant evidence on the basis of procedural defects as to how it was obtained. Rule 51(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 is not to that effect. Apart from circumstances where lateness of the evidence means it is unfair to receive it, issues of fairness go to the weight to be attached to evidence, not admissibility.

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 119 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.457688

Exit mobile version