In R (on the application of AM) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the English Court of Appeal considered whether expert evidence amounted to ‘independent evidence’ of torture. The UK Border Agency’s ‘Enforcement Instructions and Guidance’ state that where there is ‘independent evidence’ that a person has been tortured, that person is suitable for detention only in ‘very exceptional circumstances’. AM, an asylum seeker, claimed that she had been wrongfully imprisoned, as she had provided expert evidence that she had been a victim of torture but had still been imprisoned.
AM had obtained an expert report from Ms Kralj, a wound and scar specialist. Ms Kralj linked the various scars on her body to torture, however the Home Office denied that Ms Kralj’s report could constitute ‘independent evidence’ of torture, as the report relied upon AM’s own account of how she received those scars. The Home Office had previously found AM to be lacking in credibility. In the High Court, the judge agreed with the Home Office that the report could not be independent as it relied upon the claimant’s own evidence of torture.
Lord Justice Rix in the Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge was incorrect and that Ms Kralj’s report did amount to independent evidence of torture. Justice Rix stated that Ms Kralj was ‘an independent expert…expressing her own independent views’ and giving her own interpretation of what she found, even if this was in part based on AM’s account.
Click here to see an article on the case by the UK Human Rights Blog.
Click here to read the full judgment.
Meanwhile, the UK's Foreign & Commonwealth Office has launched a new report entitled Human Rights and Democracy – the 2011 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report. The report’s objective is to provide a comprehensive overview of the human rights work of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office around the globe.
The report covers a wide range of issues and deals with amongst other things, the Arab Spring, and describes it as being “about citizens demanding their legitimate human rights and dignity.” In addition, it also focuses on human rights in Britain and its importance in promoting Britain’s prosperity and national security.
It also sets out countries of concern notably, Iran, and comments that the human rights situation in Iran has not improved and even in some instances the situation has deteriorated. It also notes that the human rights situation in Burma is changing direction since the passing of new labour laws which have permitted the establishment of trade unions.
Click here to see a post by UK Human Rights Blog on the report.