The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, has just published Part 2 of the Review with 135 recommendations, including some relating to expert evidence. The Review was commissioned by the government because of the backlogs that have developed in the criminal justice system. 

The case was a group litigation concerning extensive oil pollution which affected two regions in the Niger Delta in Nigeria. The judge rejected the strident criticism of the experts who were called to provide evidence on aspects of Nigerian law.

It appears that in this case an expert recommended the appointment of an intermediary without understanding the role of an intermediary. The court did accommodate proper breaks and ensured clear explanations as to the charges faced.

R v Sartip-Zadeh [2025] EWCA Crim 1250

The defendant was contracted, during the Covid lockdowns, to source and supply sterile gowns, which the claimant subsequently asserted were not contractually compliant. Issues for expert evidence included the sterility of the gowns and whether the claimant could have mitigated the loss by resale.

The Forensic Science Regulator has published new Guidance on Forensic Science Activities: Interpretation and Communication. The Guidance applies to all practitioners and sets out principles and expectations for interpretation and communications of observations from forensic science activities. 

We have just completed the regular review of our Standard Expert Terms and Conditions of Engagement. The purpose of the Terms and Conditions is to help you ensure that you have appropriate contractual arrangements in place with the parties that instruct you.

We have just published our new Guide on Responding to Written Questions. Informed by the knowledge and experience of the EWI Editorial and Training Committee, our comprehensive guide is useful for both new and experienced experts.

The Court excluded consideration of the expert testimony of an expert on the dangers of AI and misinformation, after he submitted an expert declaration which included fake AI-generated citations to two academic articles.

Kohls v. Ellison, 2025 WL 66514 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025)

The two handwriting experts in this case were given completely different samples of comparator signatures and did not undertake the same task. The judge noted that it was extraordinary and unsatisfactory that the defendants’ expert was provided with comparator signatures which were not the person’s normal signature and was then instructed to assume they were authentic.

This case concerns the treatment of an ankle injury. Although the orthopaedic experts expressed fundamentally opposing views concerning the appropriate management of the injury and the court did have to resolve some issues by deciding whose evidence to accept, an unusual feature of this case was the significance of the fact that the evidence of the defendant orthopaedic surgeon evolved and developed during the course of the forensic process leading the court to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant's witness statement and his account at trial were almost certainly an amalgam of what the defendant thought and his expert’s opinion of which parts were found to have been copied and pasted into his witness statement. So, the court found that the defendant's account of his reasoning and recollection had been, no doubt unwittingly, influenced by expert opinion.

Ebanks-Blake v Calder [2025] EWHC 3327 (KB)