Judicial review of immigration decisions may be supported by expert witness evidence where fresh material demonstrates unlawfulness — for example, where the decision-maker failed to engage with relevant country evidence, applied outdated CPIN analysis, or ignored expert evidence in the bundle.
Expert evidence in judicial review must be genuinely fresh or demonstrate a material error in the decision-maker's treatment of existing evidence. Courts apply strict rules on new evidence in JR — expert reports should address why the evidence could not have been obtained earlier and how it affects the lawfulness of the decision.
Country condition witnesses may provide supplementary analysis demonstrating that the Home Office failed to consider changed conditions or profile-specific risks. CPIN challenge expert evidence may show the decision relied on generic CPIN analysis inconsistent with dated primary sources.
Coordinate JR expert instruction with any tribunal expert evidence. Expert reports for JR should be concise, focused on the specific ground of challenge, and compliant with CPR Part 35 independence standards.
Related Resources
Frequently Asked Questions
Can new expert evidence be filed in judicial review?
Courts may permit fresh expert evidence in JR where it demonstrates unlawfulness and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The evidential threshold is strict — expert reports must address why the evidence is fresh and material to the ground of challenge.
What expert evidence supports a CPIN challenge in JR?
Expert analysis demonstrating the decision-maker relied on outdated or generic CPIN analysis, failed to consider profile-specific risks, or ignored dated primary sources contradicting the CPIN conclusions.