13 December Case Updates An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence 16. Criticism and Complaints, Bermuda, DNA Evidence, Privy Council, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence In this Bermudan case, the appellant successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have his convictions quashed because of errors in the collection, examination and interpretation of the DNA expert evidence used in the trial. Julian Washington (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bermuda) [2024] UKPC 34
29 November Case Updates Expert appoints herself as social worker, psychologist, therapist and judge Independence, Unregulated Experts, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 06. Rules and Regulations At a time when psychologists in particular are concerned about psychological evidence being given by psychologists who are unregulated, this case illustrates the risks when an ‘independent’ social worker gives psychological evidence. The learning points are of general application. The specifics of the case are for psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers. Coventry City Council v XX [2024] EWFC 249 (B)
27 November Case Updates T (Fresh Evidence on Appeal), Re [2024] EWCA Civ 1384 07. Receiving Instructions, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Fresh evidence on appeal, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing The father sought permission to rely on fresh evidence that he had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in an appeal against care and placement orders made in respect of his daughter. The judge reviewed the law on admitting fresh evidence on appeal before applying it to the case.
21 November Case Updates Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve? Range of Opinion, Cross-examination, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence The judge noted that the expert readily accepted that integral to his reasoning was that he did not believe the claimant as to the symptoms he had suffered and, probably, teh claimant's account of the incident. In the judge's view, it is entirely outside the remit of an expert to decide which witnesses of fact he believes or disbelieves. Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2024] EWHC 2227 (KB)
14 November Case Updates The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work Orthopaedics, Paediatrics, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Pathology, Histopathology, Radiology, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert witness, who was overburdened with work, had made errors in his examination of the forensic material and closed his mind to possible or probable accidental causes for the injuries identified. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v G [2024] EWHC 2200 (Fam)
29 October Case Updates Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) 16. Criticism and Complaints, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 15. Giving Oral Evidence The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding that the primary duty of an expert witness is not to say anything that may damage the instructing party’s case if it can be avoided.
25 October Case Updates How not to use AI in expert evidence 16. Criticism and Complaints, 17. Maintaining your professional edge, Artificial Intelligence, AI, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, 11. Report Writing In this US case, an expert in fiduciary services used Microsoft’s Copilot to cross-check calculations he used in expert evidence. He was unable to recall the prompts he used, state the sources Copilot relied on, or explain how the tool worked and arrived at its outputs. The judge provided some useful insight into the challenges with using AI in expert evidence.
22 October Case Updates Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB) 16. Criticism and Complaints, 06. Rules and Regulations, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence The defendant’s spinal cord injury expert in this case agreed early on in his cross-examination that he had lost all objectivity and independence in the case, while the defendant’s physiotherapy and accommodation experts were criticised by the judge for adopting more partisan approaches in their later evidence.
9 October Case Updates Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC) 16. Criticism and Complaints, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, Surveyors, Valuation, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence The judge found that it was without justification and entirely unecessary for an expert to question the opposing expert's professionalism and motives in selecting evidence, noting that this approach was unhelpful for the tribunal.
18 September News The Single Biggest Change White Paper 03. Setting Fees and Getting Paid, 07. Receiving Instructions, 09. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 12. Responding to questions, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence Earlier this year, we asked our members about the single biggest change they’ve seen since they started practicing as an Expert Witness. With members from numerous disciplines who’ve been practicing from 40 years to 4 months, we expected a wide variety of insights, and we weren’t disappointed.