Expert witnesses criticised

Abstract

The Court invariably needs and invariably depends upon the help it receives from experts. The expert advises, but the judge decides – on the evidence. If there is nothing before the Court which throws doubt upon the expert evidence then the court must accept it. However, the Court relies upon the medical expert witness to be up to date, to be honest and to be familiar with the relevant medical literature. It has need to be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert who feels that his or her reputation or amour propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice. Agreeing to act as a medical expert witness is not a decision to be taken lightly, wantonly or ill-advisedly. Not only does it involve a lot of hard work, but may expose the expert's shortcomings in an all too public way, as two experienced medical expert witnesses, have discovered.