Flawed expert reports

Expert psychologists instructed in family cases routinely perform below par, are “inadequately qualified” or delegate key parts of the work to graduate assistants.

In a report by the University of Central Lancashire, one in five expert psychologists was found to be “inadequately qualified” on the basis of their CV, while 90% had no clinical practice apart from their expert-witness work. Two-thirds of experts’ reports reviewed were rated as below the required standard. In one court, all expert-witness psychology reports were generated by witness companies, which took a commission for the instructions.

The report, “Evaluating Expert Witness Psychological Reports: Exploring Quality”, by Professor Jane Ireland, looked at 126 expert psychological reports in family court proceedings across three UK locations.

The report recommends that judges assess experts for competence more thoroughly; that courts do not rely on expert-witness commissioning companies; that the expert’s instruction clarifies that the work should not be delegated; and that experts should be currently engaged in practice.

Dr Heather Payne, chair of the experts committee of the Family Justice Council, says: “Flawed expert reports are unlikely to mislead the court to the extent that perverse decisions are taken but flawed reports do not assist the court in its decision-making and there is a need for better quality control.”