In the 11th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at how AI is being used by Expert Witnesses. We discuss general developments related to AI in the legal sector, hear from EWI member and computer expert Richard Marshall, listen to some of the ways AI is currently being used by Expert Witnesses, and discuss some dos and don'ts when using AI. As usual, we begin with our segment on 'What's going on at EWI?' and end with 'Newsreel', a quick fire discussion of the key things you need to know this month. 

We have just refreshed our guidance on ‘Expert Discussions and Joint Statements' in the EWI Knowledge Hub (https://www.ewi.org.uk/Knowledge-Hub). Prepared with the input of members and the EWI Editorial Committeee, the guidance includes lots of invaluable advice for navigating each of the key stages in expert discussions and joint statements, form and content, joint statement templates, and how to avoid the common pitfalls. 

The expert paediatrician in this case misidentified and confused twins when reading the primary medical disclose. This fundamental error was of seminal importance in this case because the twins had very different birth and post-birth experiences, with one being much weaker and more vulnerable than the other.  The judge noted that the cross-examination of the expert was nothing short of a demolition of the expert’s evidence.

LB Croydon v D (critical scrutiny of the paedeatric overview)

The judge determined that the proposed expert evidence, to support the existence of a money laundering scheme, was not admissible and, even if admissible, was neither necessary nor of assistance to the court.

The parties sought permission to rely on expert evidence from three experts in respect of the claimant’s tazkira, an official identity document issued by the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The judge found the first proposed expert’s evidence to be hearsay, and (if the proceeding continued) directed the parties to re-serve the second expert’s report with evidence for which permission had not been given excised, and to re-serve the third expert’s report with a compliant declaration.  

MS, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin)

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (‘Committee) decided, provisionally, to postpone the extended Fixed Recoverable Cost (‘FRC’) stocktake, which was initially planned for February 2025, until October 2025, while the the cost which may be recovered to obtain medical reports in low value road traffic accident related soft tissue and whiplash injury claims is being uprated by 25.4%.

The judge determined that the evidence of the defendant’s expert on the mental health of a man detained by the police was to be preferred in every respect over the claimant’s expert because he had relevant experience of the matters in respect of which he was giving evidence and adopted the right approach.

In recent years a range of stakeholders have raised concerns regarding unregulated experts providing evidence in family law court cases and the standard of the evidence they provide. The Family Procedure Rule Committee is consulting on new FPR 25.5A with the aim of requiring any expert instructed in family law children proceedings to be regulated. A key purpose of the changes is to ensure that any expert instructed in family law children proceedings has the appropriate skills and qualifications on which to base their expert evidence. 

While there are many respectable and legitimate expert witness agencies who provide brilliant support to the expert witnesses who work with them, the EWI has had continuing reports of the activities of some unethical agencies who prey upon experts who do not have a good understanding of expert witness work or who may be vulnerable to such approaches for other reasons. We do not want any expert to fall victim to an unscrupulous agency, so we have prepared a short guide setting out the red flags to watch out for in the approach of an unethical agency and, conversely, the sorts of positive signs to expect from a respectable and legitimate agency, including a quick checklist to complete. 

In this patent case, the judge noted that neither expert was a native English speaker and both had difficulties with questions put to them during cross-examination. The misstep of one expert over the word “buckling”, which he had used in his report, and his use of a translator during cross-examination for reference, led the judge to approach his written evidence with a degree of caution.

Salts Healthcare Limited v Pelican Healthcare Limited [2025] EWHC 497 (Pat)