RB v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Linguistic analysis by Sprakab is capable of carrying very considerable weight, because its reports draw on an underlying body of data and a process involving analysts and linguists. It is not infallible and must be assessed with all the evidence. Evidence challenging a report should address its identified linguistic features and reasoning.

Any recording from which linguistic analysis is derived must be available to both parties if the analysis is to be relied upon. Sprakab personnel may ordinarily remain anonymous, provided that their identifiers, experience and qualifications are disclosed. Names should be disclosed only where a good case-specific reason requires it.

The appellant claimed asylum as a Somali Bajuni from Koyama Island. The Secretary of State rejected her claim, relying in part on Sprakab linguistic analysis which concluded that she spoke coastal Kenyan Swahili rather than Somali Bajuni. An Immigration Judge dismissed the appeal.

On the appellant’s renewed application, Black J ordered reconsideration because of concerns about the disclosure and use of the linguistic evidence. Following interlocutory directions, the Upper Tribunal re-determined the appeal after hearing evidence about the appellant’s account, competing linguistic reports, and Sprakab’s methods.

The central issues were whether the appellant’s claimed origin was credible and the proper evidential weight and procedural safeguards applicable to Sprakab linguistic analysis.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not a Somali island Bajuni and that her account lacked credible evidential foundation.

2. The appellant’s answers concerning ordinary Bajuni words, village institutions and cultural terms disclosed deficiencies inconsistent with her claimed history. Her explanations that pressure caused those failures, and her explanations for discrepancies in her account, were rejected. Although one linguistic phrase supported her case to some extent, it was substantially outweighed by the contrary evidence.

3. The Tribunal accepted Sprakab as a bona fide and reputable organisation whose process involves trained analysts, linguistic oversight, reasoned reports and internal checking. Its work was not rendered unreliable by its government clients or by the anonymity of individual personnel. Linguistic evidence cannot itself be treated as infallible or as equivalent to fingerprint evidence, but detailed and reasoned Sprakab analysis is entitled to very considerable weight.

4. An opposing linguistic report must engage with the reasons and linguistic features identified by Sprakab. A report based only on anecdotal reasoning or personal opinion will be unlikely to justify rejecting a Sprakab opinion.

5. Fairness requires every party to have access in good time to sound recordings of all speech material used for linguistic analysis. The principle applies equally to analysis commissioned by either side.

6. Under Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, anonymity for Sprakab linguists and analysts was proportionate in this case. Their identities need not ordinarily be revealed if identifiers and relevant qualifications are supplied, unless a good reason particular to the case justifies disclosure.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the appeal after re-determining it: [2010] UKUT 329 (IAC).
• High Court: Black J ordered reconsideration after identifying a possible material error concerning the linguistic evidence.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: an Immigration Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of asylum and removal decision.