Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T15:49:43.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychiatric evidence in immigration and asylum cases – a tale of two experts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2024

Keith Rix Open the ORCID record for Keith Rix [Opens in a new window]
Keith Rix*
Affiliation:
Visiting Professor of Medical Jurisprudence in the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Life Sciences, University of Chester, Chester, UK, Honorary Associate Professor, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, and a retired forensic psychiatrist.
*
Correspondence Keith Rix. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

Keywords

Appraisalcontinuing professional development (CPD)criticismexpert evidencefeedback
Type
Commentary
Information
BJPsych Advances , Volume 30 , Special Issue 6: Expert Psychiatric Evidence - including topics from the Grange Medicolegal Conference , November 2024 , pp. 422 - 424
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Commentary on… Psychiatric evidence in UK immigration and asylum cases. See this issue.

References

References

Galappathie, N (2024) Psychiatric evidence in UK immigration and asylum cases. BJPsych Advances, 30: this issue. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2024.33.Google Scholar
Royal College of Surgeons (2019) The Surgeon as an Expert Witness: A Guide to Good Practice. RCS (https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/standards-and-research/standards-and-guidance/good-practice-guides/expert-witness/). Cited 17 May 2024.Google Scholar
Whitfield, H, van Dellen, A (2021) For debate: the short report – legal and ethical implications. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 103: 544–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, D (2023) Sir Michael Davies Lecture 2023: The Criticism of Expert Witnesses in the Courts [‘The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly’]. Expert Witness Institute. Available from: https://portal.ewi.org.uk/Knowledge-Hub/Questions-and-Answers/sir-michael-davies-lecture-2023-the-criticism-of-expert-witnesses-in-the-courts.Google Scholar
Beatty v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 3163 (KB).Google Scholar
CE (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKAITUR PA011122020.Google Scholar
Murugesu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UI-2023-000246.Google Scholar
TNGB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] PA 0004021.Google Scholar
Beatty v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 3163 (KB).Google Scholar
CE (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKAITUR PA011122020.Google Scholar
Murugesu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UI-2023-000246.Google Scholar
TNGB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] PA 0004021.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.