01 February 2024 Sean Mosby 1016 Case Updates An expert who oversteps their role puts their evidence at risk bySean Mosby The Case The Claimant was appealing, and seeking permission to judicially review, a decision by the Gender Recognition Panels (GRP) not to issue a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) which states that the Claimant’s gender is non-binary. The Claimant, an American citizen residing in the UK, had had their gender recognised as non-binary under the law of the State of California. The Court granted permission for the Claimant to rely on a report prepared by Dr H Eli Joubert, a consultant clinical psychologist, as evidence of the adverse impact that the Claimant had experienced. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to the Judgment Share Print Tags Clinical psychologyDuty of ExpertDuty to the courtJudicial critismEuropean Convention on Human RightsHumans Rights Act 1998Gender Recognition Act 200405. Rules and Regulations15. Criticism and Complaints09. Records Assessments and Site Visits Related articles Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve? The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) How not to use AI in expert evidence Switch article Jagger (& others) -v- Axa Insurance PLC Previous Article Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd v Martin Warren [2024] EWCA Civ 14 Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.