Philipa Hodgson v Dr Daniel Hammond & Anor [2025] EWHC 1261 (KB) Philipa Hodgson v Dr Daniel Hammond & Anor [2025] EWHC 1261 (KB)

Philipa Hodgson v Dr Daniel Hammond & Anor [2025] EWHC 1261 (KB)

The claimant brought a clinical negligence claim against two general practitioners alleging that they failed to act on a potential diagnosis of pelvic...
Rough or inappropriate handling of an infant Rough or inappropriate handling of an infant

Rough or inappropriate handling of an infant

As in many family cases, the issue here was the cause of the child’s injuries. It includes a distinction to be made between handling in...
Unresponsive episodes in a child and the role of chloral hydrate Unresponsive episodes in a child and the role of chloral hydrate

Unresponsive episodes in a child and the role of chloral hydrate

For the specialists this case illustrates how the court investigates case of perplexing presentations in children and the importance of considering as...
Family Justice Council Guidance on Covert Recordings in Family Law proceedings concerning... Family Justice Council Guidance on Covert Recordings in Family Law proceedings concerning...

Family Justice Council Guidance on Covert Recordings in Family Law proceedings concerning...

The Family Justice Council (FJC) has published guidance for professionals and litigants who represent themselves on the use of covert recordings in...
Access to public domain documents pilot Access to public domain documents pilot

Access to public domain documents pilot

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has approved in principle a 2-year pilot on “access to public domain documents” in the Commercial...
How to Reduce the Re-traumatisation of Claimants in Medico-Legal Litigation Claims How to Reduce the Re-traumatisation of Claimants in Medico-Legal Litigation Claims

How to Reduce the Re-traumatisation of Claimants in Medico-Legal Litigation Claims

The EWI has been provided with a copy of a recently written paper setting out the risk of re-traumatising claimants in medico-legal litigation and...
A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness

Ryan Shields is a digital forensics expert who has worked in the police and private sector. Here, he explains why he is passionate about using his...
Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

In the 12th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. Joint Statements are critical documents in any...
Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

In the 11th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at how AI is being used by Expert Witnesses. We discuss general developments related...
A Day in the Life of an Aerial Imagery Expert A Day in the Life of an Aerial Imagery Expert

A Day in the Life of an Aerial Imagery Expert

Chris Cox is a professional heritage consultant, specialist interpreter of aerial imagery and Lidar data, and an Expert Witness. She is the...
Podcast Episode 10: Equal Representation for Expert Witnesses Podcast Episode 10: Equal Representation for Expert Witnesses

Podcast Episode 10: Equal Representation for Expert Witnesses

In Episode 10 of the Expert Matters Podcast we celebrate International Women's Day. Women are appointed or testify in only 9% of disputes...
A Day in the Life of an Accountancy Expert Witness A Day in the Life of an Accountancy Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of an Accountancy Expert Witness

Heather Rogers is an accountant, tax practitioner and Expert Witness. Most of her cases involve director disputes or professional negligence where...

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 1771

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.