Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Prurient questions about sexual matters


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

Reading through the Home Office’s response to a recent Home Affairs Select Committee, this jumped out at me:

The Home Office does not permit caseworkers to ask prurient questions about sexual matters or require applicants to produce sexually explicit material in support of their claim.

This is somewhat questionable given the contents of some interviews, as recently picked up by and covered in The Guardian.

Interested in refugee law? You might like Colin's book, imaginatively called "Refugee Law" and published by Bristol University Press.

Communicating important legal concepts in an approachable way, this is an essential guide for students, lawyers and non-specialists alike.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.


One Response

  1. Hmm. Is there any Home Office guidance on what exactly is a “prurient question on sexual matters”? Are caseworkers trained on how to stop themselves asking such questions? What should one do if a caseworker does ask such a question? I suppose if you are at the interview you can stop your client from answering, but thereafter can you ask for those parts of the interview to be deleted from the record, or ruled inadmissible?