01 February 2024 Sean Mosby 2072 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 Patricia Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Limited [2025] EWHC 2429 (TCC) Impact speed and risk of injury Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence Read between the lines, judge Switch article Jagger (& others) -v- Axa Insurance PLC Previous Article Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd v Martin Warren [2024] EWCA Civ 14 Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.