Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2026] EWHC 1843 (Ch) Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2026] EWHC 1843 (Ch)

Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2026] EWHC 1843 (Ch)

The proceedings related to a petition asserting unfair prejudicial conduct of the affairs of a company. The expert witness who provided valuation...
Podcast Episode 29: Acting for Litigants in Person Podcast Episode 29: Acting for Litigants in Person

Podcast Episode 29: Acting for Litigants in Person

This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss acting for litigants in person. The accessibility of tools like generative AI is making...
A Day in the Life of a General Practitioner Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a General Practitioner Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a General Practitioner Expert Witness

Dr Frances Cranfield is a GP, Assistant Coroner, and a founding member of the Expert Witness Institute. With three decades of experience spanning...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Expert Report or MG11 form?
Simon Berney-Edwards 3

Expert Report or MG11 form?

by Simon Berney-Edwards

 

Question

I have received unusual request from a police force I have not encountered before.

I was instructed by a police force, through a medical reporting intermediary, to prepare an expert medico-legal report in a suspected non-accidental injury case involving an infant. The report was completed and served on the instructing party in May 2026. It was prepared as a court-compliant expert report and includes the relevant declarations.

Approximately three months later, the Officer in Charge asked me to complete an MG11 witness statement form. A draft form was prepared for my review, with my contact details entered.

Initially I declined on the basis that the MG11 is a form for witnesses of fact and that my evidence is already set out in my report.

The instructing party has since gone back to the Officer in Charge, who has confirmed that: (i) the MG11 is intended to be served under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, with the aim of the my evidence being read at court rather than requiring my attendance; (ii) the final decision will rest with the CPS if the case proceeds to trial; and (iii) the statement should reflect my role as an expert witness rather than as a witness of fact.

What should I do?

 

Answer

The fact that the request has come from the Officer in the Case (OIC), rather than CPS, is the main issue.

Police officers are trained from a very early stage in their careers that ‘all statements must be in MG11 format’ and many tend to adopt that with all statements.

Most police drug experts do not use MG11’s to promote a disconnect between police and independence. If they use an MG11 and some still do, the expert report sits on a pile of MG 11’s and are often regarded by CPS as ‘just another statement’.

One of our committee members who has experience of this has previously had discussions with CPS lawyers who maintain that ALL evidence must be adduced by way of MG11 but many who say they don’t really care how they receive it as long as it complies with CPR.

CPR 19.4 is quite clear at section (k) below, in that it defines that the expert report must contain the same declaration of truth. By the nature of what that says, it suggests experts do not use MG11’s. 

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

(k)contain the same declaration of truth as a witness statement.

If the request to the expert in this case had come direct from prosecution counsel, rather than a police officer, that it must go on an MG11, then our suggestion to meet them halfway would be to write a short paragraph on the MG11 form saying a report has already been produced (and name it) and confirm that report is the authors original notes and that it complies with 19.4.

Unfortunately, as with many things this issue has probably stemmed from an officer with little experience, but who is trying to cross the t’s and dot the i’s.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.