New form of evidence not to be rendered inadmissible in the absence of any specific provision regarding the same

Supreme Court of United Kingdom: In an appeal concerning admissibility of linguistic analysis reports called the Sprakab reports for the purpose of determining the nationality of a person in order to grant asylum, a five judge bench emphasized that it was the duty of the Tribunals in any future case to determine what justice requires, in the light of the evidence and submissions made to them. Stating that the Practice Directions should not be rigidly applied, the Court held that the absence of any specific provision in the Practice Directions for evidence in the form of the Sprakab reports was not in itself a bar to their admission. The Court was of the opinion that the Upper Tribunal was entitled to address questions relating to Sprakab, its methodology and the presentation of its reports as where the tribunals were faced with a new form of evidence, of potential value in resolving issues of common occurrence, it was entirely appropriate for the Upper Tribunal to select a suitable case with a view to giving general guidance. Secretary of State for Home Department v. MN and KY , on appeal from 2014 UKSC 30, decided on 21 May, 2014  

To read the full judgment, click here 

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

two × 2 =