Case No. UKUT-00226-(IAC)

[2005], EWHC 367: “ [24] It seems to me to be axiomatic that a fact finder must not reach his or her conclusion before surveying all the evidence relevant thereto…. The Secretary of State argues that decisions as to the credibility of an account are to be taken by the judicial fact finder and that, in their reports, experts, whether in relation to medical matters or in relation to in-country circumstances, cannot usurp the fact finder’s function in assessing credibility. I agree. What, however, they can offer is a factual context in which it may be necessary for the fact finder to survey the allegations placed before him; and such context may prove a crucial aid to the decision whether or not to accept the truth of them. …… It seems to me that a proper fact finding enquiry involves explanation as to the reason for which an expert view is rejected and indeed placed beyond the spectrum of views which could reasonably be held. ” To this we would add that, as the hearing of the present appeals demonstrated, this Tribunal will always pay close attention to the expert’s research; the availability of empirical data or other information bearing on the expert’s views; the quality and reliability of such material; whether the expert has taken such material into account; the expert’s willingness to modify or withdraw certain views or conclusions where other evidence, or expert opinion, suggests that this is appropriate; and the attitude of the expert, which will include his willingness to engage with the Tribunal. This is not designed to be an exhaustive list.