[EasyDNNnews:IfExists:Event][EasyDNNnews:EventDate][EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Event][EasyDNNnews:IfNotExists:Event]25 September[EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Event] [EasyDNNnews:Categories separator=" " last] [EasyDNNnews:IfExists:Comments] [EasyDNNnews:Comments] [EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Comments] Good practice points in asylum and immigration psychiatric reports [EasyDNNnews:IfExists:Tags] [EasyDNNnews:Tags separator=", "] [EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Tags] [EasyDNNnews:IfExists:Event] [EasyDNNnews:IfExists:EventLocation] [EasyDNNnews:EventLocation] [EasyDNNnews:EndIf:EventLocation] [EasyDNNnews:EventDate] [EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Event] The report of an expert in psychiatry was undermined by his acceptance of the appellent's account which, unbeknown to him, a previous tribunal had found to lack credibility. The court also attached less weight to the expert's assessment than it did to a hospital letter because the assessment had been conducted remotely. Chahal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKAITUR UI2024001451