Gaining access to relevant stakeholders and documents was, as might be imagined in this high-pressured and politicised environment, often challenging. Potential interviewees were identified by various means depending on their role. For example, we gained permission from the UKBA to interview Case Owners and Presenting Officers (n=24) in each of the 4 geographical regions, where a designated team leader facilitated our access to interviewees. Similarly, the Senior President of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber gave permission for us to interview Immigration Judges (n=20), who were then identified with the help of a judicial contact in each regional tribunal centre. Other participants were recruited more directly. Interpreters (n=14) participated having answered an advertisement in the Institute of Linguists newsletter, having been recruited with the assistance of the Tribunals Service Interpreter division, or through personal contacts and snowball sampling. NGOs providing asylum support and advice (n=21) in each of the four areas were approached by letter or recruited through personal contacts. Meanwhile, legal representative respondents (n=25) were recruited on the basis of a letter that was sent to all legal practitioners engaging in asylum work in each geographical area. Interviews typically lasted between 60-90 minutes and, in most cases, were tape-recorded (with the permission of the participant). They were semi-structured in format to reflect the range of different stakeholders involved and to ensure an appropriate balance between flexibility and comparability across the
explanation for that behavior. The range of behavior that can indicate adverse credibility under section 8 is extensive, including concealing information, delaying the resolution of a claim, failing to produce official documents such as a passport or travel documents, failing to make an asylum claim as soon as practicable, or making a claim subsequent to arrest or an immigration decision. Whilst UKBA guidance states that section 8 is not the “starting point” for the consideration of credibility, it also instructs decision-makers that “section 8 behaviours must be taken into account as potentially damaging” (UKBA, 2012: 17, paragraph 4.3.4). The relevance or centrality of such factors to assessing the veracity of an applicant’s claim has, however, been challenged by a number of commentators and practitioners (see for example IARLJ 2013: 95; Thomas, 2006). After all, as Sweeney (2009: 9) has observed: “Examination of the applicant’s travel itinerary or behavior in the UK may tell decision-makers whether they are a ‘good customer’, whether they are convenient and co-operative, but it will not reveal very much about whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution.” With respect to decisions regarding the credibility of individual material facts, the UKBA Instruction further points to the need for to consider whether these are ‘plausible’ when deciding whether or not to apply the ‘benefit of the doubt’. Plausibility has been taken to mean the “inherent likelihood or apparent reasonableness of a claim”.
– A Late Attempt to Bolster the Claim? Delay in disclosure was often described by our respondents as presenting an enormous problem with respect to credibility. Research and experience indicates that there are a wealth of good reasons for delaying a disclosure, particularly where the individual is vulnerable or the incident in question was traumatic or shameful (Bogner et al, 2007; Herlihy et al, 2002). Nonetheless, a number of our respondents – whether legal representatives, UKBA personnel, NGO workers or even some Immigration Judges – were adamant that delay in disclosing a key aspect of the asylum claim, or even delay in making the claim itself, would (and for many, should) reflect negatively on a claimant’s credibility. As one legal representative put it, for example, “Obviously you’re going to have huge credibility problems because there is absolutely no sympathy or acceptance that people won’t tell their stories straight off”. Although many respondents in this study, including some UKBA personnel, acknowledged that the substantive asylum interview was not always an environment particularly well-suited to the disclosure of rape allegations, there was nonetheless a strong presumption amongst a significant proportion of our respondents that, to be credible, such disclosures needed to be made at this stage (see further, Baillot, Cowan and Munro 2012). Indeed, some UKBA personnel and Immigration
Lees, Sue (2002) Carnal Knowledge: Rape on Trial. London: Women’s Press London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine & Scottish Refugee Council (2009) Asylum Seeking Women, Violence and Health. London / Glasgow: LSHTM & SRC Maurer, Andreas., and Parkes, Roderick (2007) ‘The Prospects for in EU Asylum Policy: and Image at the European Level’. Unpublished. Available from: [Accessed: 7 October 2013] Morrison, Barry., Porter, Laura., and Fraser, Ian (2007) 'The Role of Demeanour in Assessing The Credibility of Witnesses', Advocates Quarterly 33: 170-192 National Office (2003) ‘Improving the Speed and Quality of Initial Asylum Decisions’, Report By The Comptroller And Auditor General, HC 535 Session 2003-2004 Norman, Steve (2007) ‘Assessing the Credibility of Refugee Applicants: A Judicial Perspective’, International Journal of Refugee Law 19: 273-292 Oosterveld, Valerie (2012), ‘Women and Girls Fleeing Conflict: Gender