FAQ
Country Expert Witness Questions
Practical guidance for solicitors, legal aid representatives, and appellants instructing independent country of origin evidence before the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.
Practice Direction 9 & Instruction Guidance
These answers address the most common questions from instructing professionals. For case-specific scoping, use our secure contact or instruction forms.
Under Practice Direction 9 (Expert Evidence) for the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, a country expert report must be written independently and objectively, addressed to the tribunal rather than the instructing party. It must set out the expert's qualifications, the sources relied upon, any limitations on the evidence, declared conflicts of interest, and include a Statement of Truth signed by the expert.
An independent country expert contrasts generic Home Office Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs) against peer-reviewed academic literature, NGO monitoring reports, and localised field intelligence. The aim is not advocacy but to test whether broad policy summaries accurately reflect the risk profile of a specific appellant in a specific locality, including ethnic, political, religious, or gender-based vulnerabilities that CPINs may not address in sufficient detail.
Yes. Instructions can be structured for Legal Aid Agency funded matters. We provide itemised fee estimates aligned with current LAA hourly rate bands and scope delineation suitable for prior authority applications, so representatives can secure funding approval before report work commences.
At minimum, provide the appellant's nationality, ethnicity or clan profile, primary language, destination region (city or district where relevant), alleged risk categories, tribunal tier, hearing date if fixed, and a non-sensitive case summary. Include any Home Office refusal letter, CPIN references, and prior country evidence already before the tribunal. Conflict screening requirements should be stated at the outset.
A psychiatric or medical expert assesses the individual's clinical condition. A country expert provides objective context on conditions in the country of return: state protection, persecution risk, healthcare availability, prison conditions, or internal relocation viability. In medico-legal cases, the country expert does not diagnose; they map whether adequate treatment exists and is accessible in the relevant region, supporting Article 3 ECHR analysis alongside clinical evidence.
Yes. For active removal directions, Rule 39 interim measures, or urgent injunction proceedings, we operate an expedited track. Targeted declarations and focused country evidence can be prepared within a compressed 24-to-48-hour window where case particulars are complete and conflict screening is clear.
Before accepting an instruction, we screen for conflicts including prior involvement with the same parties, overlapping regional mandates, or matters that would compromise the expert's overriding duty to the tribunal. If a conflict is identified, we will not accept the instruction or will recommend alternative panel allocation.
We accept both sole expert instructions and joint expert appointments where the tribunal or parties agree a single expert. We also provide focused supplementary declarations to rebut specific paragraphs in Home Office refusal letters or to address discrete tribunal directions without commissioning a full country report.
Turnaround depends on jurisdiction complexity, source availability, and urgency tier. Standard instructions are typically scoped within one business day of receipt, with a formal fee estimate and timeline before work begins. Complex multi-region matters or extensive CPIN rebuttal may require longer research windows, which will be stated in the initial scoping response.
We provide country expert evidence for First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Upper Tribunal (IAC), Court of Appeal, and High Court proceedings including emergency removal injunctions. Instructions are accepted from solicitors, barristers, legal aid representatives, NGOs, and individual appellants instructing directly.