header-logo header-logo

Too few medical experts in family courts

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

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll