Extradition and suicide risk Extradition and suicide risk

Extradition and suicide risk

This case is important for two reasons. It illustrates that having “no control over actions” and “not making a rational...
Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

The Transparency and Open Justice Board has published its final Key Objectives and its response to its Public Engagement on the proposed Key...
A fundamentally flawed report A fundamentally flawed report

A fundamentally flawed report

The parties unanimously agreed that the report of a Court appointed expert was fundamentally flawed, could not be relied upon, and a new psychologist...
Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and... Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ('Committee') is consulting on proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 77 and the Practice...
Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk

Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk

Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in...
Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025 Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

In the 14th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Marketing and Events Manger, Heather George, reflect on their highlights from...
Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

In the 13th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at five long-standing policy issues that have had significant developments recently: (1)...

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.

Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve?
Keith Rix 951

Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve?

byKeith Rix

 
Commentary

Only days into this year’s compendium of judgments, this seems to be what will be one of the most important judgments of the year. It illustrates how easy it is to miss giving a range of opinion and what the expert should do when there are rival factual scenarios of which one arises from disbelief of the subject’s account of their symptomatology.

As will be apparent, counsel for the defendant submitted that a medical expert can and should form a view as to whether they believe a claimant. The judge did not accept this submission as put. In doing so he set out what the approach of the expert should be in their evaluation of a claimant’s presentation.

But for the fact that the defendant had appealed the decision of the lower court to award damages, the detail of this case would probably not have gone on the public record. It is therefore one of the few cases in which experts can study the court’s examination of the expert’s opinion and although the nuances of this may be of interest only to respiratory medicine experts, the extracts of the expert’s cross-examination and of the judge’s intervention are of general interest.  

Learning points:
  • It is entirely outside the remit of an expert to decide which witnesses of fact he believes or disbelieves.

  • It is entirely proper for a medical expert to say that the medical records are not consistent with what a person claims were his symptoms.

  • Failing to appreciate or deal with the possibility that the account of the symptoms provided by the subject might be true, the expert deprives the Court of what evidence they might have been able to give if the Court accepted the truth of that account.

  • If you are present in court, or are provided with transcripts of their evidence, be prepared to modify your opinion having regard to the evidence of witness of fact.

  • In a case where there is significant inconsistency, and where the court’s findings will depend on how it resolves the inconsistency, the expert is required to give alternative opinions based on the different factual scenarios. 

  • The expert should not express a preference for one factual scenario over another unless it arises from the application of knowledge or experience outside that of the court. But even if doing so, it is necessary to offer an opinion or opinions based on the scenario the expert does not prefer as the court will decide which factual scenario to accept having regard to the totality of the evidence and of which the expert’s evidence for preferring one scenario over another will only be a part and which evidence in any event may not be accepted.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.