Commentary

Paradoxically a number of good practice points in the preparation of psychiatric reports for asylum and immigration cases are illustrated here in a case in which it was unsuccessfully submitted on behalf of the appellants that the judge was in error in his assessment of the psychiatric evidence.

An odd feature of this case is the reference to Dr Galappathie’s evidence being undermined because he found that the second appellant had “PTSD without seeing the patient” but there is also a reference to how she “recounted to Dr Galappathie details about her past including the history of trauma”. The explanation for this seeming inconsistency is that it was a remote assessment. So, the court attached less weight to the detailed history he took than to a hospital letter which made no mention of PTSD. 

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login