01 February 2024 Sean Mosby 2537 Case Updates An expert who oversteps their role puts their evidence at risk bySean Mosby The Case The Claimant was appealing, and seeking permission to judicially review, a decision by the Gender Recognition Panels (GRP) not to issue a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) which states that the Claimant’s gender is non-binary. The Claimant, an American citizen residing in the UK, had had their gender recognised as non-binary under the law of the State of California. The Court granted permission for the Claimant to rely on a report prepared by Dr A, a consultant clinical psychologist, as evidence of the adverse impact that the Claimant had experienced. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to the Judgment Share Print Tags Clinical psychologyDuty of ExpertDuty to the courtJudicial critismEuropean Convention on Human RightsHumans Rights Act 1998Gender Recognition Act 200416. Criticism and Complaints10. Records Assessments and Site Visits06. Rules and Regulations Related articles If you're wearing two hats, make sure you comply with the rules Experts and alienating behaviour: a fundamentally unsound process Qing Li & Ors v Fan Demetris Yuan & Anor [2026] EWHC 272 (Comm) Working with Expert Witnesses in Construction Civil Justice Council Consultation on Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents Comments are only visible to subscribers.