Lost in translation Lost in translation

Lost in translation

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...
Degenerative or traumatic spinal damage? Degenerative or traumatic spinal damage?

Degenerative or traumatic spinal damage?

A common issue in personal injury orthopaedic cases is whether the damage of which the claimant complains is degenerative or traumatic in origin or a...
A Day in the Life of an Aerial Imagery Expert A Day in the Life of an Aerial Imagery Expert

A Day in the Life of an Aerial Imagery Expert

Chris Cox is a professional heritage consultant, specialist interpreter of aerial imagery and Lidar data, and an Expert Witness. She is the...
Podcast Episode 10: Equal Representation for Expert Witnesses Podcast Episode 10: Equal Representation for Expert Witnesses

Podcast Episode 10: Equal Representation for Expert Witnesses

In Episode 10 of the Expert Matters Podcast we celebrate International Women's Day. Women are appointed or testify in only 9% of disputes...
Expert Evidence by the Back Door Expert Evidence by the Back Door

Expert Evidence by the Back Door

The judge in this claim for professional negligence struck out a witness statement which contained paragraphs which were pure opinion, made by...
Elevate Your Expertise: Join the EWI's Inaugural Study Day in London Elevate Your Expertise: Join the EWI's Inaugural Study Day in London

Elevate Your Expertise: Join the EWI's Inaugural Study Day in London

The Expert Witness Institute (EWI) is thrilled to announce its inaugural Study Day, a comprehensive event designed to empower both aspiring and...
A Day in the Life of an Accountancy Expert Witness A Day in the Life of an Accountancy Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of an Accountancy Expert Witness

Heather Rogers is an accountant, tax practitioner and Expert Witness. Most of her cases involve director disputes or professional negligence where...
Podcast Episode 9: Becoming an Expert Witness Podcast Episode 9: Becoming an Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 9: Becoming an Expert Witness

In the 9th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at how to become an Expert Witnesss. If you think expert witness work might be for you,...
Working on a ‘no win – no fee’ basis Working on a ‘no win – no fee’ basis

Working on a ‘no win – no fee’ basis

Professor Keith Rix discusses whether experts can accept instructions on the basis of mirroring the solicitors’ ‘no win – no...
Call for evidence: Use of evidence generated by software in criminal proceedings Call for evidence: Use of evidence generated by software in criminal proceedings

Call for evidence: Use of evidence generated by software in criminal proceedings

The Ministry of Justice has published a call for evidence on the use of evidence generated by software in criminal proceedings. The call for...
A Day in the Life of an Emergency Medicine Expert Witness A Day in the Life of an Emergency Medicine Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of an Emergency Medicine Expert Witness

Colin Holburn is an EWI fellow, governor and founding member. A consultant in accident and emergency medicine, he has been practising as an Expert...
Podcast Episode 8: Re-evaluating your opinion Podcast Episode 8: Re-evaluating your opinion

Podcast Episode 8: Re-evaluating your opinion

In the 8th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss re-evaluating your opinion. We look at possible reasons why you might wish to re-evaluate...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

A mother's malign influence on her children
Keith Rix 329

A mother's malign influence on her children

byKeith Rix

 

Commentary

This is a case which will assume much greater importance for the 15 points of practice and practical steps that the judge decided can help reduce the risk of well-meaning professionals falling into pitfalls that hinder the identification of safeguarding issues at an early stage than as a case with learning points for experts.

For some of the experts in the fields from which jointly appointed experts were instructed, it illustrates how their evidence is tested and applied in a case of suspected fabricated or induced illness (FII).

The evidence of two of the experts illustrates the importance of healthcare experts having regard to the reliability of the evidence on which they rely. The toxicology expert raised some concerns about the accreditation of the hospital laboratory where tests had been carried out. He was clear that the process adopted was entirely appropriate for clinical purposes and the purposes of the court but described “the analysis as not being 'good' but 'not bad'” leading the court to acknowledge that the testing was not forensically robust. Likewise, the respiratory expert was quick to recognise the limitations in commenting on still bronchoscopy images as supplemented by a thorax CT scan. It is for the court to decide on the reliability of evidence but in doing so the court requires the assistance of experts who can identify matters relevant to reliability that would otherwise be beyond the knowledge and understanding of the court.

It appears that the cross-examination of some experts lasted for days. For those whose reports addressed the reliability of the evidence on which they relied their cross-examination might have lasted longer and their evidence carried left weight had they not addressed the reliability of the evidence.

There were a number of experts in this case but they did not include an expert in paediatric gastro-enterology. When an issue arose as to the connection between cystic fibrosis and pancreatic insufficiency, the court accepted the evidence of the paediatric respiratory medicine expert, even though he made it clear that he is not an expert in paediatric gastro-enterology. This can be regarded as an example of the court relying on an expert’s working knowledge of a matter on the border or outside their field of expertise.  

Learning point
  • An expert’s report should include a consideration of the reliability of the evidence on which they rely.

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

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.