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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll