Judge tells colleagues to be ‘on their guard' over expert witness evidence
Patrick Hodge, who is deputy president of the supreme court and president of the Expert Witness Institute, said the increasing complexity of legal cases in modern society means expert witnesses are playing a bigger role than ever before.
'I think the nature of modern technology and the nature of modern medical science makes these things much more expert-driven than they were,' he said. 'But you can't be in thrall to an expert witness, you have to approach their evidence with care.
'As a judge, you need to be on your guard and make sure that you feel they are in a position to be properly expressing opinions on that subject. To say: 'Does your experience justify you expressing an opinion on that matter?''
Senior politicians, lawyers and doctors have raised concerns about the lack of oversight and regulation in the use of expert witnesses, who give evidence in court on subjects considered outside the knowledge of a judge or jury.
Their evidence can be crucial in determining the outcome of some cases, and there have been instances in which mishandled expert evidence has led to miscarriages of justice.
The case of Lucy Letby, the neonatal nurse convicted of murdering seven babies, has prompted renewed scrutiny of expert witnesses. Lawyers appealing against her conviction argue that the expert evidence presented at her trial was flawed.
The Expert Witness Institute, a not-for-profit founded in 1996, offers training and membership for experts based on their experience, as well as a directory of vetted experts, although there is no obligation for lawyers to use the service, or other similar schemes.
Lord Hodge said lawyers and judges should improve their 'scientific and technical literacy' so they're not 'completely cold' on a subject and too reliant on expert witness evidence.
'I think there is always concern over miscarriage of justice. A person, no matter how expert and no matter how impartial, may make mistakes. And the court may not be aware of that,' he said.
He added that there were problems with 'people coming forward claiming expertise in pseudoscience' which judges needed to be able to spot and challenge.
Julie Maxton, the executive director of the Royal Society – the UK's national academy of sciences – said resources to help judges understand the scientific topics that keep cropping up in courtrooms were becoming increasingly popular.
The society holds seminars and writes primers for judges on everything from the use of statistics and substance addiction to ballistics and DNA analysis.
'In this country, most people who go to do law don't do scientific A-levels. So they might have been out of contact with science for a long time, and science changes so much,' she said. 'We're not trying to make judges scientists, and we're all very aware that expert witnesses owe their first duty to the court for accuracy. But we're also aware that sometimes experts get things wrong.'
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Maxton said there would always be a role for expert witnesses, but the question was whether they should be accredited, and how they can be kept from digressing beyond the key areas of disagreement.
She said this was of key importance in less-tested areas of science, such as gait analysis, which some experts claim they can use to identify people based on their walk. 'They say 'I can tell by the way this person does that, or how long their stride is etc.' But there may be no scientific basis for that,' said Maxton.
As well as potential problems with the quality of expert evidence, there are concerns about whether expert witnesses are given enough training to act with complete impartiality.
Hodge said there was 'a danger of an expert witness compromising their impartiality by being too anxious to please the client or the lawyers who have instructed them'.
He said people used repeatedly as expert witnesses can end up with a 'protect the doctor mentality', where they focus too much on defending rather than explaining.
'It's very important that there are bodies who are providing accreditation and training to people who are setting themselves up as expert witnesses,' he said, even if these are not compulsory.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer and Zelensky say Alaska talks present a ‘viable chance' for Ukraine
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met in Downing Street on Thursday, affirming their 'strong resolve' to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It comes ahead of a scheduled meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Downing Street said both Sir Keir and Mr Zelensky agreed that the Alaska talks 'present a viable chance to make progress as long as [Mr] Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace'. However, there are concerns that the US and Russia might attempt to decide the war's conclusion without Ukraine's direct participation. Mr Trump has warned of "severe consequences" if the Russian leader does not agree to peace, while Mr Putin has hinted at discussions on nuclear arms control.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supermarket gunman who targeted Black people wants charges dropped, says grand jury was too white
Attorneys for the gunman who killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo supermarket say the federal charges against him should be dropped because there weren't enough Black people and other minority groups on the grand jury that indicted him. A judge is scheduled to hear arguments Thursday on Payton Gendron's claim that the selection process for the grand jury was flawed. Gendron, who is white, could face the death penalty if convicted in the 2022 mass shooting at a Tops supermarket, which he targeted because of its location in a primarily Black neighborhood. Those killed ranged in age from 32 to 86. Three others were wounded. He is serving a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole after pleading guilty in November 2022 to multiple state charges, including murder. A trial on the pending federal hate crime and weapons counts is expected to begin next year. Gendron's lawyers argue in a court filing that Black and Hispanic people and men are 'systemically and significantly underrepresented' in the lists from which jurors are selected in the Buffalo area. 'To illustrate this point, the grand jury that indicted Payton Gendron was drawn from a pool from which approximately one third of the Black persons expected and one third of the Hispanic/Latino persons expected,' Gendron's lawyers wrote. Exacerbating the problem, they said, was that the data sources used by a vendor to pull the lists together weren't preserved. As a result, Gendron's legal rights to a grand jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community were violated, they said, so the charges should be dismissed. Prosecutors said the arguments 'fail both as a matter of law and fact.' In a written response, the U.S. Attorney's office said Gendron didn't prove a systematic underrepresentation that was caused by the district's jury plan. Any disparities in the racial makeup were within accepted guidance, they wrote, and not caused by the selection process, which draws from voter, driver, tax, disability and unemployment rolls. 'The defendant is charged with killing 10 Black people and injuring three other individuals as part of a racially motivated attack on a grocery store,' prosecutors wrote. 'He now demands that the court dismiss the indictment against him because, in his view, the implementation of the Western District of New York jury plan led to the underrepresentation of certain minority groups — including Black persons.' U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the defense's motion Thursday afternoon. Gendron's attorneys, in an earlier filing, argued that Gendron should be exempt from the death penalty because he was 18 years old at the time of the shooting, an age when the brain is still developing. That motion is pending.
