RB (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Non-compliance with procedural requirements governing expert reports does not, by itself, require a tribunal to give linguistic-analysis evidence less weight. The tribunal must instead assess whether the report presents a genuine and objective opinion from suitably qualified persons, supported by reasoning sufficiently clear to permit effective challenge.

The safeguards governing expert evidence remain important even when a report was originally obtained for an administrative decision rather than litigation. An analyst may remain anonymous where justified, provided that relevant qualifications and experience are disclosed and the analytical process remains transparent and open to scrutiny.

The appellant claimed asylum as a Bajuni woman from Koyama, Somalia. The Secretary of State relied on reports from SPRAKAB which concluded from her speech that she came from Kenya. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal dismissed her appeal. Following a High Court order for reconsideration, the Upper Tribunal upheld that decision and issued general guidance on linguistic-analysis evidence.

The appellant challenged the reliability of SPRAKAB's reports, their non-compliance with the applicable expert-evidence Practice Directions, the anonymity of the analysts and linguists, and the Upper Tribunal's findings about her origin. The central issues were the proper evidential treatment of such reports and whether the Upper Tribunal had made an error of law in this case.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Upper Tribunal had made no error of law in accepting the SPRAKAB reports or in concluding, on the evidence as a whole, that the appellant was not a Bajuni islander from Somalia.

2. The failure of a linguistic-analysis report to comply with the expert-evidence requirements in the Practice Directions: Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal did not, by itself, require the report to receive less weight. Reliability could derive from the organisation's methods, safeguards and collective analytical process rather than from the identity of an individual analyst. On the evidence, anonymity caused no unfairness because the analysts' qualifications and experience were disclosed and the process was sufficiently transparent.

3. The Upper Tribunal had been wrong to suggest that expert-evidence safeguards were inapposite merely because a report was initially prepared for an administrative decision-maker rather than an appeal. Whatever the report's original purpose, it remained important to know the instructions given and to ensure that the expert offered an independent, objective and unbiased opinion within the expert's competence, without assuming the role of advocate.

4. The First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal were well placed to assess expert evidence. Under rules 5(1) and 7(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Upper Tribunal had broad case-management powers, including power to waive non-compliance with a Practice Direction or rule. Its obligation was to ensure that an expert report represented a genuine and objective view from qualified persons, supported by reasoning and clarity sufficient for assessment and challenge.

5. The Upper Tribunal's general guidance was endorsed. Clear, detailed and reasoned linguistic analysis expressed with certainty or near certainty may carry substantial weight. Linguistic analysis is not infallible, however, and all evidence must be assessed under the appropriate standard of proof. A party must have a proper opportunity to challenge an adverse analysis, including timely access to any speech recording on which it is based.

6. The appellant's factual criticisms disclosed no appealable error. The Upper Tribunal had considered the linguistic evidence together with her knowledge, personal account and other evidential inconsistencies, and had given adequate reasons for its conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal unanimously and upheld the Upper Tribunal's decision.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Following an order for reconsideration, upheld the dismissal of the asylum appeal and issued general guidance concerning SPRAKAB linguistic-analysis reports.
• High Court: Ordered reconsideration of the asylum decision.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Dismissed the appellant's asylum appeal.