Should expert witnesses always be named, asks Chris Pamplin
The tenets of open justice dictate that witnesses in court should give their evidence in the full glare of judicial and public scrutiny. In normal circumstances, this includes the naming and identifying of individual witnesses, and the risk of media attention in high-profile cases. There are, of course, some circumstances in which such publicity is undesirable. In such cases, the court has the power to make anonymity orders in respect of parties or witnesses, or else impose reporting restrictions on proceedings.
While the court will necessarily be circumspect in making such orders, they are by no means uncommon, eg cases involving the identity of minors, or security service personnel.
Against this, the court must balance the need for openness and transparency, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as well as the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998).
Experts as a class of witnesses would appear to present the court with a particular difficulty given the nature of the expert’s duty to the court, the desirability of peer review of their
