header-logo header-logo

03 December 2019
Issue: 7867 / Categories: Legal News , Expert Witness , Family
printer mail-detail

Too few medical experts in family courts

The shortage of medical expert witness in the family courts is creating delays ‘likely in some cases to be harmful to children’, a working group has found

More than 700 professionals responding to the group’s survey confirmed there are shortages of experts around the country and in a wide range of specialisms. Delays arising as a result are harmful, ‘in particular, in relation to children under the age of three, where delay may have a direct detrimental impact on the success of future placement’.

The group, led by Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, makes 22 recommendations for change in its draft report, published last week. A consultation will now take place, before a final report is issued in the spring.

The group recommends a review of legal aid rates and processes, more sensitive treatment of experts by judges, training programmes for legal and medical professionals on expert witness issues and ‘a vehicle for feedback from the legal profession’, particularly judges, to experts. Solicitors instructing experts should also ensure the paperwork is kept to a minimum and guarantee that their appearances in court are fixed and not susceptible to last-minute change, and that video link be used where appropriate. Judges should be encouraged to explain the purpose of any cross examination of the expert and, if the judge criticises the expert, they should first question the effect their criticism will have on the expert.

In his foreword, Sir Andrew said health professionals played an important role in assisting the court to make essential decisions on child welfare and the rights of carers. 

‘Both health and legal professions have long shared concerns regarding the relative scarcity of medical expert witnesses willing to participate in family cases involving children.’

Experts gave various reasons for not wishing to take on more work, including perceived ‘unnecessarily critical judgments’ and judges needing to do more to ensure lawyers do not ‘barrack’ or interrupt the witness during cross-examination. Other reasons given were low fees, particularly for legal aid work, confusing instructions from solicitors, a lack of appreciation of timescale pressures and a lack of training and support.  

Issue: 7867 / Categories: Legal News , Expert Witness , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll