Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:20:27.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reason to disbelieve: evaluating the rape claims of women seeking asylum in the UK1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2014

Helen Baillot ,
Sharon Cowan  and
Vanessa E. Munro
Helen Baillot
Affiliation:
Independent researcher
Sharon Cowan*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Vanessa E. Munro
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Asylum applicants in the UK must show, to a ‘reasonable degree of likelihood’, a well-founded fear of persecution, on the basis of race, religion, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, in the event of return ‘home’. This requirement presents myriad challenges both to claimants and decision-makers. Based on findings from a three-year national study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, this paper explores those challenges as they relate to women seeking asylum in the UK whose applications include an allegation of rape. The study explored the extent to which difficulties relating to disclosure and credibility, which are well documented in the context of women's sexual assault allegations in the criminal justice system, might be replicated and compounded for female asylum-seekers whose applications include a claim of rape. Findings suggest that the structural and practical obstacles faced in establishing credibility, and the existence of scepticism about rape claims and asylum-seeking more generally, mean that decision-making can often be experienced as arbitrary, unjust, uninformed or contradictory, making it difficult for women asylum applicants who allege rape to find refuge in the UK.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 105 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The authors are indebted to The Nuffield Foundation for funding this research (AJU/36101) and to Zoe Harper, our research assistant during the data generation stages of the project. Thanks are due to the project's Advisory Board for their time and advice. We would also like to thank all those who generously gave their time and support to the study, whether by being interviewed or facilitating Tribunal observations. We are particularly grateful to the asylum claimants who allowed us to observe their hearings or to otherwise learn about their cases, and to include their experiences in our research.

References

Adler, Michael (2007) ‘Can Tribunals Deliver Justice in the Absence of Representation?’ (ESRC Paper), online: <http://www.esrc.ac.uk/my-esrc/grants/RES-000-23-0853/read> (last accessed 1 May 2013).+(last+accessed+1+May+2013).>Google Scholar
Aspden, Jane (2008) ‘Evaluation of the Solihull Pilot for the United Kingdom Border Agency and the Legal Services Commission’, online: <http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/data/files/publications/137/Solihull_Pilot.pd> (last accessed 1 May 2013).+(last+accessed+1+May+2013).>Google Scholar
Asylum Aid (2011) Unsustainable: The Quality of Initial Decision-Making in Women's Asylum Cases. London: Asylum Aid.Google Scholar
Baillot, Helen, Cowan, Sharon and Munro, Vanessa E. (2011) ‘Crossing Borders, Inhabiting Spaces: The (In)credibility of Sexual Violence in Asylum Appeals’, In FitzGerald, Sharron (ed.), Regulating the International Movement of Women From Protection to Control. London: Routledge, 111–32.Google Scholar
Baillot, Helen, Cowan, Sharon and Munro, Vanessa E. (2012) ‘“Hearing the Right Gaps”: Enabling and Responding to Disclosures of Sexual Violence within the UK Asylum Process’, Social and Legal Studies 21(3): 269–96.Google Scholar
Baillot, Helen, Cowan, Sharon and Munro, Vanessa E. (2013) ‘Second-hand Emotion? Exploring the Contagion and Impact of Trauma and Distress in the Asylum Law Context’, Journal of Law and Society 40(4): 509–540.Google Scholar
Bano, Andrew (2012) ‘Intervention: A Delicate Feat of Balance’, Tribunals Spring: 9–11.Google Scholar
Bögner, Diana, Brewin, Chris R., and Herlihy, Jane (2007) ‘The Impact of Sexual Violence on Disclosure during Home Office Interviews’, British Journal of Psychiatry 191(7): 75–81.Google Scholar
Bögner, Diana, Brewin, Chris R., and Herlihy, Jane (2010) ‘Refugees’ Experiences of Home Office Interviews: A Qualitative Study on the Disclosure of Personal Information’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(3): 519–35.Google Scholar
British Psychological Research Board (2008) ‘Guidelines on Memory and the Law: Recommendations from the Scientific Study of Human Memory’. Online: <http://www.forcescience.org/articles/Memory&TheLaw.pdf> (last accessed 7 October 2013).+(last+accessed+7+October+2013).>Google Scholar
Ceneda, Sophia and Palmer, Clare (2006) Lip Service or Implementation: The Home Office Gender Guidance and Women's Asylum Claims in the UK. London: Asylum Aid. Online: <http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/publications.php?id=38> (last accessed 7 October 2013).Google Scholar
Cohen, Juliet (2001) ‘Questions of Credibility: Omissions, Discrepancies and Errors of Recall in the Testimony of Asylum Seekers’, International Journal of Refugee Law 13(3): 293–309.Google Scholar
Collier, Bethany (2007) Country of Origin Information and Women: Researching Gender and Persecution in the Context of Asylum and Human Rights Claims. London: Asylum Aid. Online: <http://www.refworld.org/docid/49997afd1a.html> (last accessed: 7 October 2013).Google Scholar
Crawley, Heaven (2001) Refugees and Gender: Law and Process. Bristol: Jordan Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Edwards, Alice (2012) Judging Gender: Asylum Adjudication and Issues of Gender, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation. Geneva: UNHCR. Online: <http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=509cc8252> (last accessed 7 October 2013).Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul and O'Sullivan, Maureen (1991) ‘Who Can Catch a Liar?’, American Psychologist 46(9): 913–20.Google Scholar
Ellison, Louise and Munro, Vanessa E. (2009a) ‘Reacting to Rape: Exploring Mock Jurors’ Assessments of Complainant Credibility’, British Journal of Criminology 29(2): 202–219.Google Scholar
Ellison, Louise and Munro, Vanessa E. (2009b) ‘Turning Mirrors into Windows? Assessing the Impact of (Mock) Juror Education in Rape Trials’, British Journal of Criminology 49(3): 363–83.Google Scholar
Estrich, Susan (1987) Real Rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eyster, James P. (2012) ‘Searching for the Key in the Wrong Place: Why “Common Sense” Credibility Rules Consistently Harm Refugees’, Boston University International Law Journal 30(1): 1–54.Google Scholar
Finch, Emily and Munro, Vanessa E. (2005) ‘Juror Stereotypes and Blame Attribution in Rape Cases Involving Intoxicants: The Findings of a Pilot Study’, British Journal of Criminology 45(1): 25–38.Google Scholar
Freedman, Jane (2007) Gendering the International Asylum and Refugee Debate. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Freedom From Torture (2011) Body of Evidence: Treatment of Medico-legal Reports for Survivors of Torture in the UK Asylum Tribunal. London: Freedom from Torture.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Julie (2010) Justice at Risk: Quality and Value for Money in Asylum Legal Aid: An Interim Report. London: ICAR, City University.Google Scholar
Good, Anthony (2008) Anthropology and Expertise in the Asylum Courts. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
Gregory, Jeanne and Lees, Sue (1999) Policing Sexual Assault. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hale, Sir Matthew (1736 [1788]) Historia Placitorum Coronae. The History of the Pleas of the Crown, Vol. 1, ed. Emlyn, Sollom. London: Robert H. Small (revised edition 1778, Dublin: George Wilson).Google Scholar
Henderson, Mark (2003 [2009]) Immigration Law Practitioners Association Best Practice Guide Asylum and Human Rights Appeals. London: Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (updated 2009).Google Scholar
Herlihy, Jane, Jobson, Laura and Turner, Stuart (2012) ‘Just Tell Us What Happened to You: Autobiographical Memory and Seeking Asylum’, Applied Cognitive Psychology 26(5): 661–76.Google Scholar
Herlihy, Jane, Scragg, Peter and Turner, Stuart (2002) ‘Discrepancies in Autobiographical Memories – Implications for the Assessment of Asylum Seekers: Repeated Interview Study’, British Medical Journal 7333: 324–27.Google Scholar
Home Office (2010) ‘Gender Issues in the Asylum Claim.’ Online: <http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumpolicyinstructions/apis/gender-issue-in-the-asylum.pdf?view=Binary> (last accessed 7 October 2013).+(last+accessed+7+October+2013).>Google Scholar
Home Office (2013) ‘The Government Response to the Seventh Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 2013–14 HC 71: Asylum’ (Cmnd 8769) London: Stationery Office, online: <http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm87/8769/8769.pdf> (last accessed 2 January 2013).+(last+accessed+2+January+2013).>Google Scholar
Hornquist, Magnus (2006) ‘Risk Governance of the Swedish Customs Service: Negotiating Security, Efficiency, and Poor Information’, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 7(1): 23–44.Google Scholar
House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (2013) Asylum: Seventh Report of Session 2013–14 (Volume 1). London: The Stationery Office Ltd.Google Scholar
Watch, human rights (2010) Fast-Tracked Unfairness: Detention and Denial of Women Asylum Seekers in the UK. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
Hunter, Jill, Pearson, Linda, San Roque, Mehera, Redman, Ronnit, Steele, Zachary, Frommer, Naomi, and Silove, Derrick (2013) Managing and Understanding Psychological Issues Among Refugee Applicants: Guidelines for Best Practice Resources Manual. Sydney: Faculty of Law and Psychiatry Research and Teaching Unit, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
International Association of Refugee Law Judges (2013) Assessment of Credibility in Refugee and Subsidiary Protection Claims under the EU Qualification Directive: Judicial Criteria and Standards. Netherlands: IARLJ.Google Scholar
Johnson, Toni A. M. (2011) ‘On Silence, Sexuality and Skeletons: Reconceptualizing Narrative in Asylum Hearings’, Social Legal Studies 20(1): 57–78.Google Scholar
Jones, David R. and Smith, Sally V. (2004) ‘Medical Evidence in Asylum and Human Rights Appeals’, International Journal of Refugee Law 16: 381–410.Google Scholar
Jubany, Olga (2011) ‘Constructing Truths in a Culture of Disbelief: Understanding Asylum Screening from Within’, International Sociology 26(1): 74–94.Google Scholar
Kagan, Michael (2003) ‘Is Truth in the Eye of the Beholder? Objective Credibility Assessment in Refugee Status Determinations’, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 17(3): 367–415.Google Scholar
Kaunert, Christian and Léonard, Sarah (2011) The European Union and Refugees: Towards More Restrictive Asylum Policies in the European Union? (GRITIM Working Paper Series Number 8 2011). Barcelona: Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari en Immigració – UPF Departament de Ciències Polítiques i Socials Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Kelly, Liz, Lovett, Jo and Regan, Linda (2005) A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape Cases (Home Office Research Study 293). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Lane, Mike, Murray, Daniel, Lackshman, Rajith, Devine, Claire and Zawaran, Andrew (2013) Evaluation of the Early Legal Advice Project: Final Report (Home Office Research Report 70). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Lees, Sue (2002) Carnal Knowledge: Rape on Trial. London: Women's Press.Google Scholar
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Scottish Refugee Council (2009) Asylum Seeking Women, Violence and Health. London and Glasgow: LSHTM and SRC.Google Scholar
Maurer, Andreas and Parkes, Roderick (2007) ‘The Prospects for Policy-Change in EU Asylum Policy: Venue and Image at the European Level (unpublished ms). Online: <http://aei.pitt.edu/7995/1/parkes-r-09c.pdf> (last accessed 7 October 2013).+(last+accessed+7+October+2013).>Google Scholar
Morrison, Barry, Porter, Laura and Fraser, Ian (2007) ‘The Role of Demeanour in Assessing The Credibility of Witnesses’, Advocates Quarterly 33: 170–92.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (2004) ‘Improving the Speed and Quality of Initial Asylum Decisions’, Report By The Comptroller And Auditor General, HC 535 Session 2003–2004, online: <http://www.nao.org.uk/report/improving-the-speed-and-quality-of-asylum-decisions/>..>Google Scholar
Norman, Steve (2007) ‘Assessing the Credibility of Refugee Applicants: A Judicial Perspective’, International Journal of Refugee Law 19: 273–92.Google Scholar
Oosterveld, Valerie (2012) Women and Girls Fleeing Conflict: Gender and the Interpretation and Application of the 1951 Refugee Convention (UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series No. 29, September 2012). Online: <http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b17a6.html> (last accessed 7 October 2013).+(last+accessed+7+October+2013).>Google Scholar
Pratt, Anna (2010) ‘Between a Hunch and a Hard Place: Making Suspicion Reasonable at the Canadian Border’, Social and Legal Studies 19(4): 461–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramji-Nogales, Jaya, Schoenholtz, Andrew and Schrag, Philip (eds) (2009) Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication and Proposals for Reform. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Refugee Council (2006) Briefing: New Asylum Model. London: Refugee Council.Google Scholar
Refugee Council (2012) Briefing: The Experiences of Asylum-seeking Women and Girls in the UK. London: Refugee Council.Google Scholar
Rehaag, Sean (2011) ‘Do Women Refugee Judges Really Make a Difference? An Empirical Analysis of Gender and Outcomes in Canadian Refugee Determinations’, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 23: 627–60.Google Scholar
Rumney, Philip (2006) ‘False Allegations of Rape’, Cambridge Law Journal 65: 128–58.Google Scholar
Smith, Lynn (2012) ‘The Ring of Truth, the Clang of Lies: Assessing Credibility in the Courtroom’, University of New Brunswick Law Journal 63: 10–37.Google Scholar
Souter, James (2011) ‘A Culture of Disbelief or Denial? Critiquing Refugee Status Determination in the United Kingdom’, Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration 1(1): 48–59.Google Scholar
Spijkerboer, Thomas (2000) Gender and Refugee Status. Gateshead: Ashgate/Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Sweeney, James (2009) ‘Credibility, Proof and Refugee Law’, International Journal of Refugee Law 21(4): 700–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, Jennifer (2002) Rape and the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
TEMKIN, Jennifer and Krahé, Barbara (2008) Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Thomas, Robert (2006) ‘Assessing The Credibility Of Asylum Claims: EU And UK Approaches Examined’, European Journal of Migration and the Law 8: 79–96.Google Scholar
Thomas, Robert (2009) ‘Refugee Roulette: A UK Perspective’, In Ramji-Nogales, J., Schoenholtz, A. and Schrag, P. (eds), Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication and Proposals for Reform. New York: New York University Press, 164–86.Google Scholar
Thomas, Robert (2011) Administrative Justice and Asylum Appeals: A Study of Tribunal Adjudication. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Thomas, Robert (2012) From ‘Adversarial V Inquisitorial’ to ‘Active, Enabling, and Investigative’: Developments In UK Administrative Tribunals (SSRN Paper). Online: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144457> (last accessed 7 October 2013).+(last+accessed+7+October+2013).>Google Scholar
Tuitt, Patricia (1996) False Images: Law's Construction of the Refugee. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Ukba (2007) Asylum Policy Instructions: Medical Foundation Cases. Online: <http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumprocessguidance/consideringanddecidingtheclaim/guidance/medicalfoundation.pdf?view=Binary> (last accessed 7 October 2013).+(last+accessed+7+October+2013).>Google Scholar
Ukba (2010) Asylum Policy Instructions: Gender Issues in the Asylum Claim. Online: <http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumpolicyinstructions/apis/gender-issue-in-the-asylum.pdf?view=Binary> (last accessed 7 October 2013).+(last+accessed+7+October+2013).>Google Scholar
Ukba (2012) Asylum Policy Instructions: Considering Asylum Claims and Assessing Credibility. Online: <http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumprocessguidance/consideringanddecidingtheclaim/guidance/considering-protection-.pdf?view=Binary> (last accessed 7 October 2013).+(last+accessed+7+October+2013).>Google Scholar
Unhcr (1992) Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (revised 1992). Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
Unhcr (2013) Beyond Proof: Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems. Brussels: UNHCR.Google Scholar
Vine, John (2009) Independent Chief Inspector of UK Border Agency: Liverpool Asylum Screening Unit Unannounced Inspection, online: <http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/liverpool_asu.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Vrij, Albert (2008) Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities. Chichester: Wiley Publishing.Google Scholar
Weston, Amanda (1998) ‘“A Witness of Truth”: Credibility Findings in Asylum Appeals’, Immigration and Nationality Law and Practice 12(3): 87–89.Google Scholar
Wilson-Shaw, Lucy, Pistrang, Nancy and Herlihy, Jane (2012) ‘Non-Clinicians’ Judgments about Asylum Seekers’ Mental Health: How do Legal Representatives of Asylum Seekers Decide When to Request Medico-Legal Reports?’, European Journal of Psychotraumatology 3: 18406.Google Scholar