19 December Case Updates When expert evidence falls well below the standard of a competent expert witness Psychology, Psychiatry, 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 13. Changing your opinion, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits The judge found that the evidence of the claimants' psychological expert fell well below the standard to be expected of a competent expert witness, both as to form and as to substance. Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB)
18 December Case Updates A fundamentally dishonest claimant This case concerns a fundamentally dishonest claimant. The judge held that the experts in the case were reliant on self-reporting by the claimant, who the judge found to be wholly unreliable, as to the extent to which the alleged injuries suffered had impacted her life. Scully -v- Atherton (& others) E13YX311
13 December Case Updates An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, Bermuda, DNA Evidence, Privy Council 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
10 December Case Updates Non-freezing cold injury 05. Rules and Regulations, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, Non freezing cold injury This was one case brought to trial in the multi-claimant non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) litigation. The case illustrates the challenges for experts when the clinical condition in issue is rarely encountered (or at least rarely recognised) in normal NHS practice. The detail of this judgment may be of interest only to neurologists and vascular surgeons but makes useful reading for any expert instructed in a case where non-freezing cold injury is in issue. Fraser v Ministry of Defence [2024] EWHC 2977 (KB)
5 December Case Updates One tray short of a baker’s dozen: injury on the production line Orthopaedics, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, biomechanics This case concerns an important boundary matter that sometimes arises for orthopaedic experts in relation to biomechanics and ergonomics. These are areas of expertise for which the orthopaedic surgeon’s ‘working knowledge’ may be sufficient, thereby avoiding the time and expense of instructing a further expert just as in cases where knowledge and experience of orthopaedics in general is sufficient and it is not necessary to instruct an orthopaedic sub-specialist. Swierzko v Mathiesons Bakery Ltd [2024] SC EDIN 43
29 November Case Updates Expert appoints herself as social worker, psychologist, therapist and judge Independence, Unregulated Experts, 05. Rules and Regulations, 15. Criticism and Complaints 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 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 06. Receiving Instructions, 15. Criticism and Complaints, Fresh evidence on appeal 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, 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints 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)