header-logo header-logo

Who should bear the cost of experts’ mistakes?

16 August 2018 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7806 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail
nlj_7806_pamplin

Is a Crown expert witness part of the team or independent? Chris Pamplin looks at the costs implications

  • The CPS does not bear costs liability for the errors of its experts, Sharp LJ held in R v Aylesbury Crown Court.

When considering orders for costs against one or other of the parties, it is reasonable for the court to take into consideration the conduct of the parties and any failures or omissions made by them. It might seem reasonable that this extends to the activities of all persons involved on the party’s behalf, including expert witnesses. In this respect, then, one might think that expert witnesses are indivisible from the ‘legal team’.

This was the view taken by the Crown Court sitting at Aylesbury, whose cost order against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was the subject of an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for judicial review. The DPP’s application was made following an order that the CPS pay the defendant’s costs following the collapse

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

Winckworth Sherwood—Arcangelo D’Apolito

Winckworth Sherwood—Arcangelo D’Apolito

Private wealth and tax offering boosted by dual qualified partner hire

Sackers—John Card

Sackers—John Card

Pensions firm announces hire in project management team

Myers & Co—Kerry Boyle

Myers & Co—Kerry Boyle

Staffordshire firm appoints head of commercial property

NEWS
NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925 
HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)
NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll