17 July Case Updates X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness), Re guidance, 16. Criticism and Complaints, ECHR, 06. Rules and Regulations, General Medical Council In her judgment on X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child), the Judge was highly critical of the evidence and conduct during proceedings of one of the expert witnesses, a consultant neurosurgeon, Mr M. This judgment, which should be read alongside the earlier judgment, dealt with whether Mr M should be named within that published judgment.
1 April Case Updates Kamran Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 149 TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths, ECHR, 06. Rules and Regulations The Secretary of State for the Home Office was appealing the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) to allow the Respondent’s appeal on Article 2 and 3 ECHR grounds against his deportation to Afghanistan. The Home Office did not seek to challenge the Respondent’s experts by requiring either of the experts to attend for cross-examination.
10 April Case Updates Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words Extradition, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, Complex PSTD, Sexual Abuse, ECHR This case has a number of important features of general interest. It illustrates the importance of assessing the reliability of a subject’s account. This is not the same as advising the court as to the reliability of the subject. It is the reliability of the account that is being assessed, not the reliability of the person giving the account. This is why it is good practice to open the Opinion section of an expert report with an introductory section sometimes headed ‘Evaluation of evidence’ or sometimes ‘Clinical plausibility’. That there was no challenge to the reliability of the experts’ evidence is not surprising. They explained how they assessed the appellant and the duration of the assessments. ZA v Cornetu District Court, Romania [2025] EWHC 595 (Admin)