Evidence- why is it so hard to produce?

'On my own...I could not win'

Lack of evidence is often cited as one of the major reasons why asylum seeker cases are refused legal aid and dismissed.

Anonymous asylum seeker

An asylum seeker (who wishes to remain anonymous) from the Democratic Republic of Congo was refused legal aid in 2004 and had to represent himself in court.

His case was dismissed because his story of fleeing violence was believed to be too generic and inconsistent.

"I stood on my own in court and it was hard without help because I don't know your law.

"On my own against the Home Office and the judges, I could not win.

"They misinterpreted my story, it hasn't changed because it is my story and I didn't make it up," he said.

---

How do we know if an asylum case is genuine or not?

Watch how I set out to investigate how fair and humane the system is for giving evidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

'Counting the genuine cases on one hand...'

Anonymous immigration lawyer

An anonymous Immigration lawyer, who has been practising for seven years, believes that most asylum cases are not genuine and "can count the genuine asylum seekers on one hand."

"The majority of asylum cases are completely unfounded. Even some of those that have been awarded refugee status, it’s an arguable case," she said.

Can we trust judges?

Dr Alan George, from St Antony’s College, Oxford University is often called on to give evidence as an expert witness in asylum cases in court when his expertise in the Middle East is required.

Dr George in Jordan

 

He believes that most Immigration judges "are of high quality, both intellectually and emotionally."

"They do their best to get it right. Regrettably, there is a very small minority who do themselves and the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal no credit – but such minorities can be found in all professions," he said.