Case No. UKUT-00092-(IAC)

Dr Mahoney’s evidence 27.Dr Mahoney is a chartered psychologist (CPsychol) and chartered scientist (CSci). She is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Senior Lecturer in Psychology / PhD course leader at the University of Worcester. She is also an approved researcher for the Office of National Statistics. 28.Dr Mahoney is not a citizen of St Lucia and has never visited St Lucia. She cannot be properly described as a country expert on St Lucia with extensive experience of researching or reporting on a variety of matters relating to St Lucia. Importantly, Dr Mahoney does not describe herself as such. Her qualifications and expertise for the purposes of her report, are set out at the beginning of the report in these terms: “I am a Chartered Psychologist, Chartered Scientist, Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society, and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy with over 20 years of experience working as academic and researcher. Victimisation and sexuality, the role that social contexts and culture play in victimology, and the impact of victimisation on wellbeing are aspects of my specialist research, and relevant to the issues I have been asked to express an opinion on in relation to the client. I have also worked with police constabularies on projects exploring how their strategies are perceived by the public, and conducted and published research on perceptions of criminality, additional specialist research topic knowledge I have that is relevant to the client’s case. My research expertise in victimisation includes being an Approved Office for National Statistics (ONS) Researcher that enables me to access sexuality and victimisation data collected by the ONS in the UK that is restricted in its availability to those the ONS have trained and approved as suitable to work with this information because of its confidential and sensitive nature. This is relevant to the client’s c ase because I am familiar with, and have worked with/published research that uses official crime victimisation and sexuality data, and issues related to official data on victimisation and sexuality are central to the client’s case. Additionally, I am familiar with the challenges of accessing and using these sorts of data to understand how sexuality and victimisation are linked, and my suitability for these particular tasks is reflected in my ONS Approved Researcher status. I am also a Co – Opted Committee member of the British Psychological Society’s Psychology of Sexualities Section, the Society’s specialised subsystem that focuses on understanding the psychological experiences of sexuality and gender identity minorities. As Committee members we are asked to provide expert commentary on sexuality legislation, reports and human rights issues with national and international scope. Therefore, I am actively involved with my Professional Statutory Regulatory Body’s engagement with LGBTQ experiences, wellbeing and welfare, all issues relevant to the client’s case. I lead, and am involved in, a number of cross – University projects exploring how sexuality, victimisation and wellbeing are linked, and supervise a number of doctoral students whose research focuses on sexuality, gender and victimisation. This includes one of the few research projects being run that focuses specifically on the experiences of LGB individuals in Saint Lucia, and this work is part of a broader research project on sexuality in Saint Lucia (see Couzens, Mahoney and Wilkinson, 2017). This is relevant to the client’s case because of the scarcity of such research, and the diverse and complex sources of information and data on sexuality and victimisation that this work entails. Therefore, my expertise and experiences as a chartered psychologist and researcher, knowledge and skills in research governance and research ethics (see CV), role within the British Psychological Society, and specific research on sexuality and culture (with a focus on Saint Lucia) I am involved in provide me with expertise that qualify as relevant to the issues I have been asked to express an opinion on in relation to the client’s case.” 29.The summary of Dr Mahoney’s report accurately reflects the remainder of the report and her oral evidence. “There is substantial evidence demonstrating that homophobic victimisation is underreported in Saint Lucia. This reflects LGBT individuals’ fear of the repercussions of making such reports because same – sex sexual behaviour is criminalised on the island. Critically, homophobic discrimination and victimisation are not recognised legally as crimes, and sexual and gender minorities have few/no legislative protections, in Saint Lucia. De facto official reports of homophobic victimisation cannot be made because they are not recognised by law. A range of human rights and media reports confirm homophobic discrimination and victimisation to be normative experiences for Saint Lucia’s LGBT citizens whose safety and protection cannot be guaranteed. The lack of ‘official’ reports reflects these factors and not that such experiences are rare. ” 30.Dr Mahoney has referred to the appellant as a ‘client’ in her report. This is unfortunate; however, I am satisfied that she has approached her task with the requisite degree of independence, reliability and objectivity. As regards knowledge of a country, it has been accepted that to be an expert one does not necessarily have to live there or to visit regularly. Dr Mahoney was questioned closely by Mr McVeety. She answered his questions directly and did not seek to exaggerate in any way. Dr Mahoney’s report appropriately uses a variety of source materials to support her conclusions. These include raw data, local press, local and international human rights reports, online and academic articles. It was agreed at the hearing that Dr Mahoney provides a helpful insight into the proper way to approach the scarce information available regarding the treatment of gay men in St Lucia. She was very helpful in collating information that the parties were unable to find. This included the statistics for the offence of buggery in St Lucia, referred to in more detail below. 31.When Dr Mahoney’s oral evidence is considered alongside her report, the key matters that emerge are set out below.(i) St Lucia is a small island with a geographic area totalling 616km and a population of some 178,000. It is a parliamentary democracy . The economy is tourism dependent (89% of GDP) and there are high rates of unemployment and crime. (ii) St Lucia lacks many of the official reporting and monitoring structures, systems and processes that are normative in Europe and larger Caribbean islands such as Jamaica. Official crime data is available but data on the experiences of victims of crime i.e. victimisation surveys are non-existent. (iii) Same– sex sexual behaviour is a criminal offence in St Lucia . H omophobic discrimination and victimisation are not recognised legally as crimes, and even if reported would not be recorded as such because they are not recognised. (iv) Historically and currently, homophobia and homophobic victimisation are normative experiences for gay men in St Lucia. St Lucia is a deeply conservative, traditional and religious society in which there is widespread disapproval of homosexuality. The fear of being disowned by family , discriminated against and stigmatised by society, “ internalised homo phobia” , as well as fears of violence or threats of violence are relevant factors preventing many gay people from being openly gay in St Lucia. This is reflective of the wider (particularly English-speaking) Caribbean region, where many sexual minorities conceal and suppress their sexual identity to prevent social exclusion and criminalisation. (v) There is very limited peer reviewed academic research on homophobia in St Lucia. The three peer reviewed papers that have been published including the academic article co-authored by Dr Ma honey , support the following: homophobic victimisation is a common experience for openly gay people but this is underreported because o f a fear of the consequences of disclosing one’s sexuality; within the Catholic dominated education system, gay students experience homophobic motivated verbal and physical abuse; gay men develop self-loathing and an aversion to other gay men because of “internalised homophobia” resulting from sociocultural and religious influences ; sexual minorities who are “light-skinned” are likely to receive a greater degree of tolerance than those who are “dark skinned” ; regional disparities exist in the level of socio-cultural tolerance toward sexual minorities , with the more developed nort h of St Lucia (with its attendant tourism and better health / employment / education opportunities) being more tolerant than t he s outh. (vi) Given the relevant legal framework, o fficial reports of homophobic victimisation are difficult to make . This must be seen in the context of a population in which there is a marked reluctance on the part of gay men to report a crime of violence against them out of fear that they will be stigmatised , abused or charged with a criminal offence themselves . The lack o f reported violence for reasons relating to a person’s sexuality in the media is therefore not necessarily a reliable indicator of the absence of such violence . The lack of official or other reports must be viewed in its proper context : there is a deep-rooted reluctance to report such incidents and t here is an underplaying of homophobic incidents to protect St Lucia’s tourist industry. (vii) There is substantial evidence demonstrating that homophobic victimisation is underreported in Saint Lucia. This is based in part on distrust of the police, fear of retaliation and a general reluctance to raise matters that may draw attention to a person’s sexuality . (viii) The statistics for the offence of buggery in St Lucia (