header-logo header-logo

03 December 2019
Issue: 7867 / Categories: Legal News , Expert Witness , Family
printer mail-detail

Too few medical experts in family courts

The shortage of medical expert witness in the family courts is creating delays ‘likely in some cases to be harmful to children’, a working group has found

More than 700 professionals responding to the group’s survey confirmed there are shortages of experts around the country and in a wide range of specialisms. Delays arising as a result are harmful, ‘in particular, in relation to children under the age of three, where delay may have a direct detrimental impact on the success of future placement’.

The group, led by Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, makes 22 recommendations for change in its draft report, published last week. A consultation will now take place, before a final report is issued in the spring.

The group recommends a review of legal aid rates and processes, more sensitive treatment of experts by judges, training programmes for legal and medical professionals on expert witness issues and ‘a vehicle for feedback from the legal profession’, particularly judges, to experts. Solicitors instructing experts should also ensure the paperwork is kept to a minimum and guarantee that their appearances in court are fixed and not susceptible to last-minute change, and that video link be used where appropriate. Judges should be encouraged to explain the purpose of any cross examination of the expert and, if the judge criticises the expert, they should first question the effect their criticism will have on the expert.

In his foreword, Sir Andrew said health professionals played an important role in assisting the court to make essential decisions on child welfare and the rights of carers. 

‘Both health and legal professions have long shared concerns regarding the relative scarcity of medical expert witnesses willing to participate in family cases involving children.’

Experts gave various reasons for not wishing to take on more work, including perceived ‘unnecessarily critical judgments’ and judges needing to do more to ensure lawyers do not ‘barrack’ or interrupt the witness during cross-examination. Other reasons given were low fees, particularly for legal aid work, confusing instructions from solicitors, a lack of appreciation of timescale pressures and a lack of training and support.  

Issue: 7867 / Categories: Legal News , Expert Witness , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll