Dr Chris Pamplin looks at how far a judge can go in taking a proactive role towards experts in proceedings
It is part of the judge’s role to oversee the questioning of witnesses. Judges are rarely taciturn, and many is the expert who has been on the wrong end of an acerbic judicial comment. But how far can a judge go in this? A case came before the Court of Appeal recently in which the court took the opportunity to make some useful observations on what is permissible.
The case concerned was Shaw v Grouby [2017] EWCA Civ 233. It involved a boundary dispute, right of access and encroachment on land in which the judge found in favour of the claimant. During the course of the trial, the trial judge had reportedly made many interjections. Indeed, according to the defendant, the judge had all but taken over cross-examination. It was alleged that he had conducted a detailed examination of the experts with a view to getting them to agree to his views, and at one point began to answer the questions that had been
