I'm looking for any decisions which may contradict CIS/12032/1996. The key line in that decision is "......A tribunal......must assess the credibility, or otherwise, of any witness including the claimant. If it does not find the evidence given by the claimant credible, it is entitled to say so without more". I currently have a case at the Commissioners' Office and I thought I saw a relatively recent decision which said that tribunals must explain why they don't find verbal evidence credible.

try para 15 onwards of HA v Secretary of State of State for the Home Department <2007> CSIH 65

Have a look at paras 14 & 15 of R{SB} 33/85 - available on Rightsnet - Commissioner advises that reasons should be given for rejecting uncorroborated evidence - in that case oral.

May not add anything to Chris Orr's reference, which I don't have sight of.

Tony

CSB/615/1985 reminds the Tribunals that oral evidence is as admissible as documentary evidence and does have to have corroboration.

The principle is based on R(I) 2/51 where the Commissioner held:
"There is not rule of English law that corroboration of the claimant's own evidence is necessary, but in some cases a local tribunal may rightly think that they cannot act on the claimant's uncorroborated evidence either because it is self-contradictory or inherently improbable or because the claimant's demeanour does not inspire confidence in his truthfulness, though it is seldom safe to reject the evidence solely of that reason."

I hope this is useful.

Mr.Sanatkumar Dave
Welfare Rights Officer
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Council Offices
Wellington Road
Ashton-under-Lyne
Tameside OL6 6DL

Tel: 0161 342 3494

To follow up Chris' post earlier, the 'HA' case is at:

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2007/CSIH_65.html

To quote from para 17 of the judgement:

"If a decision on credibility is one which depends for its validity on the acceptance of other contradictory facts or inference from such facts, it will be erroneous in point of law if the contradictory position is not supported by any, or sufficient, evidence, or is based on conjecture or speculation (Wani, paragraph 24, quoted with approval in HK at paragraph 30). A bare assertion of incredibility or implausibility may disclose error of law; an immigration judge must give reasons for his decisions on credibility and plausibility (Esen, paragraph 21)"

David