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.