'Undoubtedly an Expert'? Anthropologists in British Asylum Courts

By Good, Anthony | Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, March 2004 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

'Undoubtedly an Expert'? Anthropologists in British Asylum Courts

Good, Anthony, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute

A 1987 dictum by Lord Bridge during an appeal hearing in the British House of Lords is often cited by lawyers representing asylum seekers, to remind the court about the seriousness of the issue before them: 'when an administrative decision [is] one which may put the applicant's life at risk, the basis of the decision must surely call for the most anxious scrutiny' (Bugdaycay v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] Imm AR 250). These words carried particular force because there was then no appeals procedure for refused asylum claimants in the United Kingdom, whose only legal remedy was judicial review. Since 1993, there has been a statutory right of appeal under almost all circumstances, yet the consequences of being disbelieved remain just as drastic. Moreover, most asylum seekers cannot, for obvious reasons, produce corroborative evidence of their ill-treatment, much less call their persecutors as witnesses. Asylum decisions therefore depend heavily upon assessments of claimants' credibility, and on the plausibility of their stories in relation to general background information--referred to in the courts as 'objective evidence'--on the situation in their countries of origin.

Many British anthropologists have been asked in recent years to provide such 'objective evidence' in the form of written reports (oral evidence by experts is rare in asylum hearings), but little has been written from an anthropological perspective about this, or indeed about any other aspect of the asylum process. (1) Mahmood (1996a; 1996b) addresses the ethical implications of involvement in asylum cases, and Daniel's study of Tamil torture victims contains vignettes from asylum hearings (1996: 180), but the only detailed account of direct anthropological involvement in an asylum claim remains that by Alvarez and Loucky (1992). It is hard to generalize from this, however, because Loucky was in the unusual position of being hired by the asylum seekers' attorney to conduct fieldwork in their clients' home area.

This article describes the administrative and legal decision-making processes to which asylum claims are subject, and considers how the courts respond to objective evidence from so-called 'country experts'. (2) It looks also at medical expert evidence, which I had assumed--wrongly, as it turned out--would be less problematic for lawyers because of its greater familiarity. Fieldwork in 2000 to 2001 involved observation of about 320 asylum hearings, as well as interviews with adjudicators, tribunal chairs, barristers, solicitors, doctors, and country experts. Rather than focusing on the cut and thrust of oral proceedings themselves, however, this article is concerned solely with their written outputs--known as 'determinations' in the asylum courts themselves and 'judgments' in higher courts--in which members of the judiciary assess the documentary and oral evidence before them, and provide explicit reasons for their decisions.

Whereas for lawyers these decisions serve as vital sources of legal precedent, the concern here is primarily ethnographic. Rather than taking legal discourse at face value, this discussion treats it as an object of study in its own right (Humphreys 1985), contrasting it with discourses employed by experts themselves. In that sense, the analysis belongs squarely in the tradition of the 'new legal pluralism' (Merry 1988: 872) exemplified by recent work on low-level courts in the United States (Conley & O'Barr 1990; Merry 1990).

The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

The 1951 Refugee Convention, as modified by a 1967 Protocol, defines a 'refugee' as someone who: 'owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

'Undoubtedly an Expert'? Anthropologists in British Asylum Courts


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?