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 expert evidence. As new forms of evidence came along, new guidance would become required. However, SPRAKAB experts gave their evidence under conditions of anonymity as against the parties. The Court suggested amendments to the Guidance given by the Upper Tribunal, saying that it should emphasise the duty of the court in each case itself to examine the evidence and its reasoning critically. Secondly, the issue of anonimity should be assessed from case to case in the light of the particular evidence and submissions made.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 30, [2014] 1 WLR 2064, [2014] 4 All ER 443, [2014] WLR(D) 227, 2014 GWD 17-325, [2014] INLR 590, 2014 SLT 669, 2014 SC (UKSC) 183, UKSC 2013/0202
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Scotland
Citing:
At UTIAC – 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 . .
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
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.526195
