1 Linguistic analysis reports from Sprakab are entitled to considerable weight. That conclusion derives from the data available to Sprakab and the process it uses. They should not be treated as infallible but evidence opposing them will need to deal with the particular factors identified in the report.
2 Recordings of all material derived from the appellant and used as material for linguistic analysis should be made available to all parties if the analysis is to be relied on in the Tribunal.
3 Sprakab linguists and analysts are not to be required to give their names (as distinct from their identifiers, experience and qualifications) unless there is a good reason particular to the individual case.
Judges:
CMG Ockleton VP, Perkins, McKee SIJJ
Citations:
[2010] UKUT 329 (IAC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
At UTIAC – Secretary of State for Home Department v MN and KY SC 6-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the use of linguistic analysis (provided by SPRAKAB) as evidence in immigration cases so as to identify the origin of an appellant.
Held: The Practice Directions already provided guidance on the use and admission of . .
Appeal from – RB (Somalia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 13-Mar-2012
The appellant claimed asylum on the basis that she was a member of the Bajuni minority clan from Koyama, an island in Somalia. If that was true, she risked persecution from the majority clan. She appealed against an adverse finding based in part on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Evidence
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425492
