header-logo header-logo

Resolution: expert witness standards must not rule out "new" experts

12 November 2013
Issue: 7584 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Child experts must meet minimum standards but less experienced experts should not be excluded

New national standards for expert witnesses in children cases must not prevent first-time experts giving evidence, Resolution has said.

The standards, drawn up by the Family Justice Council, will be implemented in April. They include ensuring the expert has appropriate knowledge, is regulated or accredited to a registered body, has received “appropriate training”, has been active in the area of work, and seeks feedback after the case is finished. They are designed to improve the quality of evidence and reduce delays in the courts. 

A Resolution spokesperson said the organisation “agrees that experts involved in all family proceedings should meet minimum standards” but that “such standards should not preclude less experienced and ‘new’ experts providing evidence and the bodies regulating experts should ensure that suitable training is provided for new experts. 

“Solicitors should comply with their own standards relating to choice and instruction of experts but there should be no undue burden on solicitors, for example imposed by the Legal Aid Agency, to verify that an expert meets the standards.”

Mark Solon, managing director of expert witness training group Bond Solon Training, says the new requirement to seek feedback from the instructing solicitor is “pie in the sky”.

“Unless the solicitor is being paid to give feedback, he is unlikely to do so,” he says. “It is impossible for the judge to give feedback as it might provide grounds for an appeal.”

Solon also notes that “appropriate training”—a requirement under the new standards—is not adequately defined.

Unnecessary commissioning of additional written statements, clarifications and court appearances by expert witnesses is a major cause of delay in the family courts, according to the Ministry of Justice, which introduced rule changes in January to restrict the use of experts to when “necessary” to resolve the case.

 

Issue: 7584 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll