header-logo header-logo

28 January 2022 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7964 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Expert witness: No right of reply?

70036
Dr Chris Pamplin looks at a recent ECtHR judgment that highlights the unfairness in judicial criticism of expert witnesses & offers a possible solution
  • Addressing the unfairness often seen with judicial criticism of experts.
  • The Hamid procedure.

One of the more serious sanctions an expert criticised by the court might face is a complaint being made to their professional body. Many will remember cases, such as that of Professor Roy Meadow and Dr Waney Squier (eg see ‘Confronting dogma’, 167 NLJ 7741, p19) where judicial criticism led to damaging proceedings before professional tribunals.

Unfairness of judicial criticism of experts

Given the often far-reaching effect of judicial criticism, it is, perhaps, surprising that experts subjected to it have little or no recourse to reply prior to a complaint being lodged. Their first opportunity to respond may come only once they face a duly constituted tribunal of their professional body. By that time, the damage may already have been done.

In the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision in Gardiner

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll