01 February 2024 Sean Mosby 2479 Case Updates An expert who oversteps their role puts their evidence at risk bySean Mosby The Case The Claimant was appealing, and seeking permission to judicially review, a decision by the Gender Recognition Panels (GRP) not to issue a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) which states that the Claimant’s gender is non-binary. The Claimant, an American citizen residing in the UK, had had their gender recognised as non-binary under the law of the State of California. The Court granted permission for the Claimant to rely on a report prepared by Dr A, a consultant clinical psychologist, as evidence of the adverse impact that the Claimant had experienced. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to the Judgment Share Print Tags Clinical psychologyDuty of ExpertDuty to the courtJudicial critismEuropean Convention on Human RightsHumans Rights Act 1998Gender Recognition Act 200416. Criticism and Complaints10. Records Assessments and Site Visits06. Rules and Regulations Related articles Podcast Episode 22 : Feedback and Criticism A Day in the Life of a Clinical Psychologist Expert Witness McLaren Indy LLC & Anor v Alpa Racing USA LLC & Ors [2026] EWHC 110 (Comm) Getting paid in Scotland Alame & Ors v Shell PLC & Anor [2025] EWHC 1539 (KB) Comments are only visible to subscribers.