Following the COVID-19 pandemic, assessments by video link became a standard and acceptable form of medico-legal evaluation. The various challenges to achieving an accurate and robust medico-legal assessment via a remote platform are explored in this clinical reflection. It is concluded that any limitations to a remotely undertaken assessment must be highlighted to the court and an in-person assessment considered as a reasonable alternative in some cases.

This article reviews some of the various shorter cognitive tests that are available. They vary in complexity, time taken to administer them and what specific neurocognitive domains they assess. They range from screening tests such as the Mini-Cog to more detailed measures such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment or the Mini-Mental State Examination. The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination is more comprehensive and covers attention, memory, verbal fluency, language and visuo-spatial function. The article suggests areas of cognition that may be related to the six competencies assessed in the determination of fitness to plead and to stand trial.

This article critically reviews the case law, guidance and standards related to the provision of expert psychiatric evidence in immigration and asylum cases in the UK. It discusses the potentially complex and medico-legally challenging process of psychiatric evaluation of asylum seekers, and the implications of the presence of psychiatric disorders for issues such as the individual's ability to give oral evidence in court, immigration detention, fitness to fly, removal, deportation, ability to reintegrate into the destination country and appeal rights. To give context to the discussion, it outlines the asylum process in the UK from claiming asylum, initial screening and the ‘substantive interview’ to, if a claim is rejected, appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), detention and the removal process.

In an article in this issue of BJPsych Advances a courageous psychiatrist describes judicial criticism of his expert testimony in a case before the UK's Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). This commentary reflects on the value of criticism and feedback on expert witness work, contrasting the psychiatrist's positive response to the judge's words with the reaction of an expert witness in clinical negligence case, who rejected criticism of his evidence.

This is areview of an early and important textbook published by Sir William Norwood East.