Questioning the evidence: A case for best-practice models of interviewing in the Refugee Review Tribunal

This article addresses the problem of eliciting accurate and reliable evidence when reviewing applications for refugee status. While cases reviewed in the AAT (Migration and Refugee Division) often lack hard evidence, Members are simultaneously disadvantaged by a lack of evidence-based interviewing protocols to guide their questioning practices. This research examines the practices and regulatory environment of such decision-making in light of international standards of ethical questioning of detainees. It finds firstly that Members do not presently use the opening phase of the interview to maximise the Applicant's recall and improve the quality of their responses and, secondly, that Members are not consistent in their use of questions to elicit information from applicants. This article concludes that the introduction of questioning protocols for the Migration and Refugee Divison Members would improve efficiency in hearings and help to ensure that Members are not exposed to appeals based on random interviewing approaches.