| Summary: |
In this paper I draw on my experience as an anthropologist, twenty-six years work as a country expert and extensive research on asylum and immigration law and practice to assess how litigation has shaped the role of country experts and the way their evidence is evaluated by Judges who sit in United Kingdom’s Immigration and Asylum Tribunal (IAT) and in the English Court of Appeal. I begin by looking at the history of applied work in Anthropology and my growing involvement as an Anthropological ‘expert’ involved in asylum and immigration law. I then examine litigation in the British courts which has attempted to define and regulate the role of experts and their evidence. Finally, I discuss my work as a country expert and how the courts have assessed the ‘validity’ of my evidence by drawing on a diverse range of asylum claims. The paper concludes that while experts confront a range of constraints imposed by the law, they can successfully challenge judges to rethink their assumptions and ensure that vulnerable refugees are granted protection. |
