Commentary

It is not possible to read this judgment without having enormous sympathy for a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist whose reports the judge had received and accepted over many years but in this case was found to have fallen below his own high standards as a forensic expert witness. The court recognised the considerable burden of work under which he was labouring as he is currently the only forensic consultant histopathologist accepting instructions in cases of suspicious death and/or alleged inflicted injuries in this country. The consequence of this state of affairs, however, is that he has a huge workload.

In 1803, in his Medical Ethics or a Code of Institutes and Precepts Adapted to the Professional Conduct of Physicians and Surgeons, Thomas Percival wrote:

            ‘It is a complaint made by coroners, magistrates and judges, that medical gentlemen are often reluctant in the performance of the offices, required from them as citizens qualified by professional knowledge, to aid the execution of public justice.’

For ‘medical gentlemen’ substitute ‘histopathologists’ (of either gender). It is probable that if more histopathologists were undertaking expert witness work, Professor N would not have been carrying such a huge medicolegal workload and would not have fallen below his own high standards as a forensic expert witness.

The learning points are all of a general nature. Paediatric and other specialists might usefully read this as an example of a case in which CPR had to be considered as a cause for rib fractures found at post mortem.

Learning points:

General

• Be able to recognise when you are taking on more expert witness work than it is possible to complete to your usual standards.

• Beware reaching a premature and very fixed conclusion and then failing to reconsider that conclusion in the light of the wider circumstances of the case.

• If there are areas of your evidence which are controversial, make this clear.

• Giving a range of reasonable opinion means drawing attention to features which may point to a different conclusion to that which you have reached.

• Continued failure to identify a mistake when it has been pointed out by other experts suggests that something more than simple error is in operation.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login