Expert witnesses are needed in a variety of Court cases, such as medical negligence or cases involving serious injury. Their evidence is often needed to provide a narrative to the Courts, or to better communicate to the jury more complex and nuanced information, but no matter what the case, their opinions and expertise must always be completely independent.

 

What does independence mean in an Expert witness?

The opinion of an expert witness carries significant weight in Court, as it is professional, unbiased, and based on factual evidence only. Their expertise can be highly valuable during a dispute, and sometimes even critical when ruling, but no matter what, it is essential that their views are always objective, only ever be based on factual observations, and never serve to deliberately favour a particular party in the case.

Independence in an expert witness means exactly this – that they uphold a high sense of honesty and integrity. Their independence must also be formally acknowledged, as the final expert witness’ report which details their findings, rationale and independent opinions is submitted to the Court, will also include a clause which states that they have understood their duty to the Court, complied with all duties, and are aware of the relevant requirements under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

The giving of false statements in Court or in subscribed documents, is treated very seriously, and could even be considered as fundamental dishonesty in some cases.

 

Why is independence so important in an expert witness?

An example case we can explore is Brian Muyepa -v- Ministry of Defence of October 2022, where the Claimant’s care expert  was criticised for being biased and not fulfilling her duties as an expert witness.

In this case, Mr Justice Cotter heard from one of two care experts, Ms Kerby, and one of two employment experts, Mr Craggs, where he expressed concerns over the validity of their evidence.

Mr Justice Cotter comments that in this regard, both experts acted at times as advocates for the Claimant and both at times presented partisan views to the Court. In so doing, they neglected their duties as independent experts. What’s more, the very significant edifice of damages within the schedule was built with significant reliance upon the evidence of Ms Kerby, and crumbled significantly as the case progressed even on the assumption that the Claimant’s evidence was largely reliable.

It was also noted that at times, Mr Craggs adopted the twin roles of expert and Judge of the facts, with his findings being favourable to the Claimant.

Given the issues that arose in respect of the expert evidence in relation to care in this claim, it is necessary to consider the principles which govern such evidence.

Unfortunately, during this case, the experts were not seen as upholding their unbiased, independent opinions, but more so failing to remember that through the litigation process, they are not part of the Claimant’s or Defendant’s “team” and their duty is ultimately to the Court.

Furthermore, as an expert witness must always provide an objective unbiased opinion in relation to the relevant matters upon which they are assisting the Court, the actions of both Ms Kerby and Mr Craggs both deliberately contradicted and therefore invalidated their CPR statement of truth.

 

What is the result of an expert witness neglecting their duty?

In this case, Mr Justice Cotter acknowledges that Mr Craggs gave some partisan views. In some instances this acted as a clear example of Mr Craggs straining to find an explanation that could assist the Claimant.

What’s more, Mr Justice Cotter also stated that Ms Kerby’s experience when giving evidence should stand as a warning, due to the following issues in respect of her evidence such as:

• Setting out no adequate assessment of why care/an item was reasonably required by the Claimant.
• Neglecting to consider whether what she was recommending was something the Claimant would have had/used in any event had he not been injured.
• Entering the witness box not having advised the Court of her revised view after the Claimant and Mrs Muyepa had given evidence and potentially allowing social media and surveillance evidence to change the matters addressed in her report, to name but a few.

However, Ms Kerby also revealed at a later stage that she had been preparing reports solely on behalf of Claimants for nine years. And whilst recognising the understandable concern a Court would have as to the risks that arise when an expert’s workload (and income) is solely for one side to litigation, this damaged the credibility of the reports she prepared. These are thought to have contained some partisan views designed to maximise damages for the Claimant. A direct break of key CPR regulations.

 

Choosing an independent agency

At Harrison Associates, we take instructions from both Claimant and Defendant parties, and our expert witnesses are therefore exposed to cases on both sides. This aids them in being rounded, robust, unbiased, and completely independent experts. 

Our goal is to continue to lead in our independence and balance of instructions and to ensure reasonable restitution for the Claimants that we deal with.

Our team of expert witnesses and case managers are trusted by over 500 legal firms, trusted by the solicitors and insurers dealing with complex cases, and most importantly of all, we are trusted by the people whose rehabilitation we manage.

 

To find out more about our services, contact our team today.