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 evidence given from a an expert body SPRAKAB under conditions of anonymity.
Held: ‘Linguistic analysis at SPRAKAB is a two-stage process. First, the analyst listens to a recorded specimen of speech, typically an interview. The analyst notes features of the speech which appear to be of interest. Second, the analyst discusses those features with a linguist. The analyst and linguist decide whether the features are diagnostic of the speaker’s origin and produce a report with four grades of likelihood: certainty (one way or the other), most likely, likely and possibly. The rationale for identification of the degree of certainty or otherwise is usually explained in the report. The analysts are given extensive training by the linguists so as to look for certain distinctive features of any particular language or dialect. ‘
Judges:
Rix, Moses LJJ, Briggs J
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 277, [2012] WLR(D) 77
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – RB (Linguistic Evidence SPRAKAB) Somalia UTIAC 15-Sep-2010
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Evidence
Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.451904
