Case Updates

This case is important for expert healthcare experts in delayed-diagnosis cases in Scotland, being brought under the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011, s 3,  but, relying on an English case, it may be relevant to healthcare experts outside Scotland. In a conventional causation case, an expert may be asked: ‘Would the patient have survived but for the alleged negligent delay?’ This case concerns whether the alleged breach of duty caused the loss of a chance of a better outcome.

Lever v Ayrshire and Arran Health Board (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 89 

This is yet another case in which a medical report has been given little weight in immigration and asylum proceedings.

Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKFTT HU507302025 (IAC)

Although this is an immigration and asylum case, in which country experts often provide evidence from a variety of sources about conditions in the applicant’s home country, it includes importance advice for all experts about the use of information on the internet.

SU v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Expert reports - format) Bangladesh [2026] UKUT 317 (IAC) 

This is a fascinating case in terms of the expert’s qualifications, training and experience. As a result of the expert not setting these out in the report, and for other reasons, the judge could attach little or no weight to the expert’s opinions.

RC v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKFTT HU670752024 (IAC) 

Many medical experts from a variety of specialties, but in particular accident and emergency, may be called upon to advise the court as to the nature, extent and potential consequences of injuries suffered by the victims of crime. In this case the two accident and emergency experts provided reports which assisted the sentencing judge and were sufficiently detailed to assist the Court of Appeal when considering the submission by the Attorney general that the sentencing judge incorrectly categorised the level of harm resulting the stabbing of two men at an underground station. The case illustrates how medical experts should report on the injuries of the victims of crime and the information that the court requires in order to categorise the severity of their injuries. 

R v Green [2026] EWCA Crim 1003 

This case has important lessons for psychology and psychiatry expert witnesses and also for lawyers. It makes clear that, at least in the Asylum and Immigration Chamber, psychologists are expected to consider general practitioner records.

Typhopon v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004978

Laura Langley, 38, was alleged to have killed her seven-week-old daughter Edith who collapsed at the family home in Blackpool, Lancashire, in the early hours of 20 November 2020. The Judge found that the expert evidence in the case of Professor G, of Professor N and of Professor D each at times fell below the high standard expected of expert witnesses giving evidence before the family court in this jurisdiction. This judgment illustrates a number of important lessons for expert witnesses. The criticisms go well beyond a disagreement between experts—they concern the duties of an expert to the court. An expert who appears to defend a predetermined hypothesis rather than follow the evidence risks losing credibility entirely, regardless of their qualifications or experience. This judgment illustrates that methodological rigour, transparency, and impartiality are essential to persuasive expert testimony.

Having written in Hospital Update, 48 years ago, about routine parenteral thiamine alongside prophylaxis or treatment of alcohol withdrawal symptoms, I read this with great interest. It should be of interest to physicians and psychiatrists but what is striking are the lessons for all experts. There is a long section in which the judge is critical of some of the experts and their evidence.

Although the detail of this judgment is for diabetologists and gastroenterologists it is of general interest with regard to its treatment of statistical evidence, reliance on odds ratios and relative risk ratios and the position taken by the court on the relationship between the civil standard of proof and confidence intervals.

Alexander v HCA International Ltd [2026] EWHC 1284 (KB) 

After summarising the case law, the court in this case stated that there is a high threshold to be reached in order for ill health or physical disability to impinge upon the court's approach to assessing the appropriate method of sentencing an offender. This is not to say that ill health or disability will never be taken into consideration as is indicated by these terms: ‘not generally’, ‘not automatically’, ‘can take account’, ‘may enable’, ‘not in itself’, ‘it may be permissible’, ‘in appropriate cases’, ‘permissible to have regard’ and ‘purely on the basis’.

Lavery, R v (Sentencing Remarks) [2026] NICC 5