Day in the life of an Expert Witness

Although this is an immigration and asylum case, in which country experts often provide evidence from a variety of sources about conditions in the applicant’s home country, it includes importance advice for all experts about the use of information on the internet.

SU v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Expert reports - format) Bangladesh [2026] UKUT 317 (IAC) 

The case concerned the non-payment by a tenant of a commercial service charge. In considering the tenant’s permitted contractual defences of “manifest or mathematical error or fraud”, the Supreme Court construed the meaning of “manifest error” narrowly.

This is a fascinating case in terms of the expert’s qualifications, training and experience. As a result of the expert not setting these out in the report, and for other reasons, the judge could attach little or no weight to the expert’s opinions.

RC v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKFTT HU670752024 (IAC) 

The Claimant was suing in relation to profound disabilities he suffered due to the Defendant’s admitted clinical negligence. While some of the experts were praised, some were severally criticised by the judge, particularly for failing to consider the range of opinion. Two of the experts were also significantly hampered by their nervousness in cross-examination. 

JBX v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 2294 (KB)

Many medical experts from a variety of specialties, but in particular accident and emergency, may be called upon to advise the court as to the nature, extent and potential consequences of injuries suffered by the victims of crime. In this case the two accident and emergency experts provided reports which assisted the sentencing judge and were sufficiently detailed to assist the Court of Appeal when considering the submission by the Attorney general that the sentencing judge incorrectly categorised the level of harm resulting the stabbing of two men at an underground station. The case illustrates how medical experts should report on the injuries of the victims of crime and the information that the court requires in order to categorise the severity of their injuries. 

R v Green [2026] EWCA Crim 1003 

This case has important lessons for psychology and psychiatry expert witnesses and also for lawyers. It makes clear that, at least in the Asylum and Immigration Chamber, psychologists are expected to consider general practitioner records.

Typhopon v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004978

Laura Langley, 38, was alleged to have killed her seven-week-old daughter Edith who collapsed at the family home in Blackpool, Lancashire, in the early hours of 20 November 2020. The Judge found that the expert evidence in the case of Professor G, of Professor N and of Professor D each at times fell below the high standard expected of expert witnesses giving evidence before the family court in this jurisdiction. This judgment illustrates a number of important lessons for expert witnesses. The criticisms go well beyond a disagreement between experts—they concern the duties of an expert to the court. An expert who appears to defend a predetermined hypothesis rather than follow the evidence risks losing credibility entirely, regardless of their qualifications or experience. This judgment illustrates that methodological rigour, transparency, and impartiality are essential to persuasive expert testimony.

The Appellant, a citizen of Tajikistan, was appealing the Respondent’s decision to refuse his protection claim. The Judge gained the distinct impression that the Appellant’s expert witness was simply advocating on behalf of the Appellant, rather than assisting the Tribunal by providing a critical, objective expert opinion on the context. In doing so, he trespassed into the role reserved for the Tribunal.