Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Experts, in particular medical experts, are likely to be familiar with experts’ discussions that take place after the exchange of reports. This...
A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

Sue Lightman is a Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmologist who has been undertaking medicolegal Expert Witness work for over 20...
Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531 Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531

Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531

This case is about whether the judge erred in finding that Ms Soophia Khan had capacity to defend proceedings for contempt of court. This is an...
Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

We are pleased to welcome a new Corporate Partner
Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding...
Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Successful Certification candidates receive their certificate from Lord Hodge.
Independence, bias and conflicts of interest Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Hon Mr Justice Trower provides invaluable guidance for Expert Witnesses at the 2024 the Sir Michael Davies lecture.
Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Range of Opinion is the focus of the 5th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast. We catch up with Colin Holburn, Chair of the EWI Membership Committee,...
A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

Tim White is a chartered chemist who uses his expertise to assess chemical risk from exposure to water. He has been an Expert Witness for over 40...
Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Simon and Sean discuss expert fees and catch up with Dominic Woodhouse from Partners in Costs to talk about cost management and budgeting in civil...
A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

Jerry Ponder uses his 40+ years of experience in fitted interiors to provide expert evidence on the design, product quality, installation and project...
Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Simon and Sean discuss Single Joint Experts and catch up with two EWI members who act as Single Joint Experts to hear about their experiences, the...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Experts making the evidence fit their own conclusions do not meet their duty to the Court
Sean Mosby 1170

Experts making the evidence fit their own conclusions do not meet their duty to the Court

bySean Mosby

The Case

The Judge, HHJ Booth, was considering medical evidence of three skull fractures to a young child which were purportedly caused while she was in the joint care of her parents and maternal uncle. The medical experts instructed by the Court held different opinions as to how the injuries were likely to have been sustained.

The Expert Witnesses

The Court instructed four expert witnesses to determine how the injuries to the child could have occurred:

  • Dr Williams, a paediatric neuroradiologist,

  • Dr Elhassan Magid, a paediatrician,

  • Dr Ellis, a genetic specialist, and

  • Dr Hall, a neonatologist.

The Expert Evidence

There was a difference in the expert opinions of Dr Williams, the paediatric neuroradiologist, and Dr Magid, the paediatrician, as to the most likely cause of the injuries.

Dr Williams was instructed to assist the Court with the conclusions which could be drawn from the CT scan. He considered that the injury to the front of the skull was consistent with infliction and unlikely to be birth-related, while the two injuries on the sides of the child’s head were highly unlikely to have been caused in one incident, with considerable force being required to cause each of the two fractures. Dr Williams referred to a paper which indicated that the preponderance of fractures, of the types on sides of the child’s skull, arise in cases of abuse.

Dr Magid, on the other hand, reached the opinion that it was perfectly possible for the frontal fracture to be birth-related, and that it was likely that the two injuries to the sides of the head were caused simultaneously in one incident. His starting premise was that the father’s account of the child’s fall was accurate and caused the two injuries on the sides of the skull.

Two expert meetings between: (1) Dr Ellis, Dr Williams and Dr Magid, and (2) Dr Hall, Dr Williams and Dr Magid, failed to resolve the differences of opinion, with Dr Magid being in a minority of one in both meetings.

The Judge’s statements

The Judge was complementary of the evidence of Dr Williams who “gave evidence in a measured way” and provided his opinion on the most likely explanation for the injuries without definitively ruling out other, less likely, explanations.  

The Judge was, however, extremely critical of Dr Magid and the evidence he provided. He went as far as to note that his instruction “was a mistake by the Court and Dr Elhassan Magid’s evidence was not only unhelpful but was positively misleading.” Dr Magid’s opinion relied on his own conjecture which was not supported by any evidence.

The Judge made clear that “[a]n expert witness is not helping the Court by trying to make the evidence fit their own conclusions. Dr Elhassan Magid should have deferred to Dr Williams on [the most likely cause of the injuries]. Dr Elhassan Magid's evidence was not credible. I am afraid that I am driven to the conclusion that his evidence was verging on the dishonest and was, certainly, unprofessional, and unacceptable from a court-appointed expert witness. I do not understand his motives, but he was not applying his first duty to assist the Court.”

Learning points:

  • An expert witness’ overriding duty is to help the Court on matters within their expertise.

  • Experts should not speculate as to the unproven facts of the case or try to make the facts fit their own conclusions. Expert evidence should be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.

  • Experts should state the most likely cause, in their opinion, while acknowledging the possibility of other possible causes.

  • Experts should engage constructively in expert meetings and be willing to defer to a colleague with greater expertise and experience in a specific issue.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.