K v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A tribunal assessing expert evidence must engage with the substance of the report. It may reach a conclusion on risk which differs materially from the expert’s assessment, but it must explain adequately any difficulty with the expert’s qualifications or the report’s reasoning. An expert may be qualified to give evidence about a territory without having personally visited or lived there. The absence of first-hand experience is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to disregard the evidence. Where a report raises issues requiring individual consideration, critical passages cannot be dismissed summarily. This decision was confined to the evidence in the particular case and was not intended to establish general rules about expert evidence.

The appellant, an Ivory Coast national, claimed asylum after alleging that he had been captured by rebels, forced to act as a boy soldier, and sexually abused during his journey to the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State rejected the claim.

An adjudicator accepted several material parts of the account but found no persecution for a Convention reason and considered that the appellant could relocate within the Ivory Coast. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal found that the adjudicator had failed to take account of an expert report, but, having considered that report and a later report, dismissed the appeal. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Tribunal had lawfully assessed the expert evidence.

The appeal was allowed. The decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Asylum and Immigration Appeal Tribunal for rehearing.

1. The Tribunal was entitled, after identifying an error of law, to consider both the expert’s original report and a later report prepared after the adjudicator’s decision.
2. The Tribunal remained responsible for deciding the risk faced by the appellant. It was entitled to reach a conclusion markedly different from that of the expert. That did not relieve it of the need to engage with the substance of the reports.
3. An expert could be properly qualified to give evidence about a territory without having lived there or visited it. The Tribunal’s concern about the expert’s lack of first-hand experience therefore required adequate explanation and could not, without more, justify rejecting the evidence.
4. The expert’s reports set out substantial country information and then addressed its probable impact on the appellant individually. They identified specific risks arising from his ethnicity, faith, perceived association with the rebels and escape from them, including the absence of effective protection or safe relocation. The Tribunal did not engage with those issues. Its two stated reasons—lack of first-hand experience and insufficiently identified sources or reasoning—did not adequately explain why the critical passages were rejected.

The Court declined to give guidance extending beyond the particular expert evidence in this case. The decision was to be treated as fact-specific and without general ramifications.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal, set aside the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter for rehearing.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Found an error of law in the adjudicator’s failure to take account of the expert report, considered the reports and the remaining evidence, and dismissed the appeal.
3. Adjudicator: Accepted that the appellant’s father had been murdered, that the appellant had been forced to become a boy soldier, and that he had been sexually abused during the journey. The asylum claim was rejected on the basis that no Convention reason for persecution had been established and that internal relocation was possible.
4. Secretary of State for the Home Department: Rejected the asylum claim and considered that the appellant could safely return to the Ivory Coast.