Expertsandexpertwitnesses

Anexpertcanbeanyonewithknowledgeorexperienceofaparticularfieldor
disciplinebeyondthattobeexpectedofalayman.Anexpertwitnessisanexpert
whomakesthisknowledgeandexperienceavailabletoacourt1tohelpitunderstand
theissuesofacaseandtherebyreachasoundandjustdecision.Thisdistinction
impliesafurtherone,betweenadvisingclientsandhelpingthecourt,whichwewill
explorelater.Inthemeantimewewillconcentrateontheroleanddutiesofanexpert
witnessingivingorpreparingevidenceforthepurposeofcourtproceedings.

Whatisexpertevidence?
Thefundamentalcharacteristicofexpertevidenceisthatitisopinionevidence.
Generallyspeaking,laywitnessesmaygiveonlyoneformofevidence,namely
evidenceoffact.Theymaynotsay,forexample,thatavehiclewasbeingdriven
recklessly,onlythatitendedupintheditch.Itisthefunctionofthecourt(whether
judgeorjury)todecidethecauseoftheaccidentbasedontheevidenceplacedbefore
itanditisthetaskoftheexpertwitness(anaccidentinvestigator,say)toassistthe
courtinreachingitsdecisionwithtechnicalanalysisandopinioninferredfromfactual
evidenceof,forexample,skidmarks.Forthisreason,expertwitnessesarenotjust
allowedtoexpressopinionsonthemattersreferredtothem,theyareexpectedtodo
so.
Tobetrulyofassistancetoacourt,though,expertevidencemustalsoprovideasmuch
detailasisnecessarytoconvincethejudgethattheexpertsopinionsarewellfounded.
Itfollows,then,thatitwillofteninclude:
factualevidenceobtainedbythewitnesswhichrequiresexpertiseinits
interpretationandpresentation
factualevidencewhich,whileitmaynotrequireexpertiseforitscomprehension,
isinextricablylinkedtoevidencethatdoes
explanationsoftechnicaltermsortopics
hearsayevidenceofaspecialistnature,e.g.astotheconsensusofmedical
opiniononthecausationofparticularsymptomsorconditions

aswellas
opinionsbasedonfactsadducedinthecase.

Whenisexpertevidenceneeded?
Expertevidenceissoughtmostobviouslyindisputesrequiringdetailedscientificor
technicalknowledge.Thereis,however,nothingintheCivilProcedureRulesthat
preventsexpertevidencebeingcalledonanyfactualissueindisputethatisdeemedto
beoutsidetheknowledgeorexperienceofeitherjudgeorjuryproviding,thatis,that
thecourtdeemsitadmissible.

Admissibilityofexpertevidence
Generallyspeaking,expertevidenceisadmissiblewhenevertherearemattersatissue
whichrequireexpertisefortheirobservation,analysisordescription.Moreover,the
courtshavecustomarilyaffordedlitigantswidelatitudeinadducingsuchevidence.One
reasonforthisisthatuntiltheevidencehasbeenheard,thejudgehaslittleelsetogo
oninassessingthecompetenceoftheexpertortheweighttobeattachedtohis
evidence.
Recently,though,therehasbeensomehardeningofjudicialattitudesonthistopic,
particularlywhereunnecessaryuseofexpertwitnesseshasresultedindelaysinthe

hearingofcasesorcontributedexcessivelytotheircost.ThesolutionproposedbyLord
WoolfintheFinalReportofhisinquiryintotheciviljusticesysteminEnglandand
Waleswasthatthecallingofexpertevidenceshouldbeunderthecompletecontrolof
thecourt.TheCivilProcedureRules,whichcameintoforceon26April1999,give
effecttothisaswellasmanyotherofLordWoolfsproposals.Thereformofthe
criminaljusticesystemheraldedbytheintroductionoftheCriminalProcedureRules
inApril2005isseeingthetwojurisdictionsbecomingincreasinglyalignedintheir
handlingofexpertevidence.
Courtsnowhavethepowertoexcludeexpertevidence,eventhoughitwouldotherwise
beadmissible.Onthefaceofit,thisconflictswiththerightofindividuallitigantsto
presenttheircaseunderconditionsthatdonotplacethematadisadvantagevisavis
theiropponents,arightsecuredtothembytheHumanRightsAct1998.Thusfar,
however,attemptstochallenge,onhumanrightsgrounds,acourtsrefusaltoallow
partiestocalltheevidencetheywishhavemetwithnosuccess.2Itisinterestingto
note,however,thattheCriminalProcedureRules(2005)containaspecificrecognition
oftherightsofadefendantunderArticle6oftheEuropeanConventiononHuman
Rights.Thisrightissaidtobefundamentalindefiningwhetherthecaseisdealtwith
justly,asrequiredbytheCriminalProcedureRulessoverridingobjective.Thiscould
leadtosomeinterestingargumentsshouldattemptsbemadetolimittheavailabilityor
choiceofexpertsincriminaltrials.

Whenmightexpertevidencenotbeadmissible?
ifthejudgeconsidersthattheexpertsqualificationsorexperiencearenot
sufficientlyrelevanttotheissues
if,ontheprovenfactsofthecase,thejudgeandjurycanformtheirown
conclusionswithoutitshelp
whenitdealswithmattersthatareforthejudgeorjurytodecide
whenthepartiesthemselvesaswitnessesoffactarecapableofgivingthe
evidencethemselves
whenitisnotproducedintimetoenablepartiestoexchangereportswithinthe
timescalesetbythecourt
whentheexpertprovidingitfailstoobservetherequirementslaiddownbyrules
ofcourtorpracticedirectionsastotheformthereportshouldtake.

Thecourtalsohasthepower,ofcourse,torejectevidencethatisotherwise
admissible,ifitshouldformanunfavourableviewastotheimpartialityoftheexpert
providingit.
Duringtheconsultationprocessforreformingthecriminaljusticesystemafurther
categoryofadmissibilitywasconsideredthatofaccreditation.Thepossibilitywasthat
noexpertevidencewouldbepermissibleincriminalcases(atleastinspecificareasof
expertise)unlessthatexperthadbeenaccreditedandappearedonacentrally
maintainedregister.However,thatproposedreformwasroundlyrejected.
Dutiesofanexpertwitness
Theprimarydutyofanexpertwitnessistothecourttobetruthfulastofact,
thoroughintechnicalreasoning,honestastoopinionandcompleteincoverageof
relevantmatters.Thisappliestowrittenreportsasmuchasoralevidence,and
regardlessofwhetherthewitnessisonoath.

Atthesametime,whenacceptinginstructionstheexpertassumesaresponsibilityto
theclienttoexerciseduecarewithregardtotheinvestigationshecarriesoutandto
provideopinionevidencethatissoundlybased.Thisnecessitatesthattheexpert
undertakesonlythosetasksheiscompetenttocarryoutandgivesonlythoseopinions
heiscompetenttoprovide.

Tofulfilthesedutiesadequatelyitis,ofcourse,vitalthattheexpertshouldalsohave
keptuptodatewithcurrentthinkinganddevelopmentsinhisfield.
Inaddition,theexpertmusttreatasconfidentialtheidentityoftheclientandany
informationabouthimorheracquiredinthecourseofinvestigations,unlesstheir
disclosureisrequiredbylaworhasbeenauthorisedbytheclient.
Finally,anyoneacceptinginstructionstoactasanexpertwitnessshouldensurethathe
isfamiliarwiththeprovisionsofPart35oftheCivilProcedureRulesandtheassociated
PracticeDirection,andtheCJCExpertsProtocol.Anexpertshouldbeevermindfulof
thepotentialconsequencesfortheclientofafailureontheexpertsparttoobserve
theirrequirements.Theprovisionsgoverningexpertsincriminalcasesarecontainedin
Part33oftheCriminalProcedureRules.
Qualitiesrequiredofanexpertwitness
Expertevidenceshouldbeandshouldbeseentobeindependent,objectiveand
unbiased.Inparticular,anexpertwitnessmustnotbebiasedtowardstheparty
responsibleforpayinghisfee.Theevidenceshouldbethesamewhoeverispayingfor
it.3
Clearly,too,anexpertwitnessshouldhave:
asoundknowledgeofthesubjectmatterindispute,and,usually,practical
experienceofit
thepowersofanalyticalreasoningrequiredtofulfilhisassignment
theabilitytocommunicatefindingsandopinionsclearly,conciselyandinterms
adaptedtothetribunalbeforewhichevidenceisbeinggiven
theflexibilityofmindtomodifyopinionsinthelightoffreshevidenceorcounter
arguments
theabilitytothinkononesfeet,sonecessaryincopingwithcrossexamination,
and
ademeanourthatislikelytoinspireconfidence,particularlyincourt
appearances.

Ethicalconsiderations
Thedutiesanexpertwitnessowestothecourtmaysometimesruncountertothosehe
owestotheclient.Thiswillbemostobviouslysowhentheexpertsconclusions
contradicttheclientscaseassetoutinthepleadings.Insuchcircumstancestheexpert
witnessmaycomeunderpressuretoalterhisreportorsuppressthedamagingopinion.
Todoeitherwouldbetantamounttocommittingperjury,whilenottodosomightwell
underminetheclientscase.
Thereareonlytwowaysinwhichsuchanissuecanberesolved:eitherthestatement
ofcaseisamendedortheexpertwitnessmustresignhisappointment.
Anexpertwitnesscanneveraffordtoignoreinformationdamagingtohisclientscase
onceitcomestolight,ifonlybecausethereisalwaystheriskthattheothersidewill
becomeawareofit,too.Inanycase,theexpertsdutytothecourtrequiresthathis
evidenceiscompleteinitscoverageofrelevantmatters.Indeed,oneofthe
recommendationsmadebyLordWoolfinhisFinalReportisthatanexpertsreport
shouldendwithadeclarationthatinittheexperthasdrawntotheattentionofthe
courtanymatterthataffectsthevalidityoftheopinionshehasexpressedtherein.

Lastly,anexpertshouldbewaryofexpressinganyopiniononallegationsofnegligence
onthepartofanyone,professionalorotherwise,whomaybeinvolvedinadispute.

Theopinionsgivenshouldrelatesolelytothefactsofthecase:itisforothersto

apportionblame.
Conflictsofinterest
Expertwitnesseshaveadutytothecourttobeindependentandobjectiveinthe
evidencetheyprovide.Judgesmay,intheexerciseoftheirdiscretion,rejectaltogether
evidencetenderedbyexpertswhomtheyknowtohaveorsuspectofhavinga
financialstakeintheoutcomeofthelitigation.Thisistheprincipalreasonwhyexperts
shouldneveracceptinstructionstoactasanexpertwitnessonanowin,nofee
basis.
Formuchthesamereason,personal,professionalorfinanciallinkswithpartiestoa
dispute,orwithbusinessesincompetitionwiththem,wouldnormallydebaranexpert
fromactingasanexpertwitnessinanylitigationinwhichthosepartiesareengaged.
Expertwitnessesneedtobeparticularlymindfuloftherisksinvolvedinactingincases
involvingformerclients,lestthisshouldprompttheallegationthatknowledgeor
informationgainedwhileworkingfortheformerclientisbeingusedtothisclients
disadvantage.Wheneverthereisaconflictofinterestofthiskind,oritappearsthat
theremaybeone,theexpertconcernedshouldseektoobtaintheinformedconsentof
boththeoldandthenewclientbeforeagreeingtoactforthelatter.
Thismaynotbeasstraightforwardasitsounds.Itwillinvolveattheveryleast
disclosingtoeachclienttheothersnameandthenatureoftheassignmentcompleted
orenvisaged.Asafirststep,then,itwouldbenecessaryfortheexperttoclearwith
eachclientwhatheproposestotelltheother.Insecuringtheformerclientsconsent,it
mayhelpiftheexperthasreturnedallthepapersrelatingtothecaseorcasesinwhich
evidencewasgivenonbehalfoftheformerclient.Ifthatclientsconsentshouldnotbe
forthcoming,however,theexpertoughttodeclinetobeinstructedinthenewcase.
Howtohandleapotentialconflictofinterest
TheCourtofAppealinTothvJarman4hasgivenguidanceonhowexpert
witnessesshouldhandlepotentialconflictsofinterest.
Thiswasanappealbyaclaimantinaclinicalnegligenceclaim.Thedefendantwasa
generalpractitionerwhotreatedtheclaimantsson.Despitetreatment,thesondied
andtheclaimantsoughtdamagesforpsychiatricinjurybasedonthedefendants
allegednegligence.TheMedicalDefenceUnion(MDU)wasactingforthedefendantand
instructedanexperttoreport.Theexpertsevidencewasfavourabletothedefendant,
andattrialitwaspreferredbythejudgetotheclaimantsexpertsevidence.However,
onappeal,theclaimantsaidtherehadbeenmaterialnondisclosurebytheexpertofa
conflictofinterestarisingoutofthefactthattheexpertwasamemberoftheCases
CommitteeoftheMDUatthetimethereportwaswritten.TheCasesCommitteeisthe
partoftheMDUthattakesdecisionsonwhethertodefendanygivenaction.
TheCourtofAppealsaidthataconflictofinterestdoesnotautomaticallydisqualifyan
expertfromgivingevidence.Thekeyiswhethertheexpertsopinionisindependentof
thepartiesandthepressuresofthelitigation.Apartythatwishestocallanexpertwith
apotentialconflictofinterestshoulddisclosedetailsofthatconflictatasearlyastage
intheproceedingsaspossiblesothattheotherpartyandthecourtcanproperlyassess
theconflictofinterest.Itwasnotenoughforthedefencetosaytheclaimanthadnt
askedabouttheexpertsrelationshipwiththeMDU.Iftherewasaconflictofinterest
thatwasnotobviouslyimmaterial,itshouldhavebeendisclosedbytheexperttoher
instructingsolicitorsandfromthemtotheclaimantssolicitors.
However,inrejectingtheappeal,theCourtofAppealsaidthepracticeoftheCases
CommitteeoftheMDUtoexcludeanexpertinvolvedinthelitigationfromdiscussions

aboutthecasemeantthatmembershipoftheCommitteewouldnotautomatically
disqualifythatexpertfrombeinganexpertwitness.Furthermore,theexperthad,in
fact,ceasedtobeamemberoftheCommittee6monthsbeforethetrial.Inthe
circumstances,eveniftheexpertsconflictofinteresthadbeenadisqualifyinginterest
initially,ithadthenbecomeimmaterial,andsotherewasnobasisforinterferingwith
thejudgesdecision.
Guidanceforexperts
TheCourtofAppealthenwentontoconsiderwhatshouldhappeninanysimilarfuture
situation.
Theexpertshouldnotleaveundisclosedanyconflictofinterestwhichmightbringinto
questionthesuitabilityofhisevidenceasthebasisforthecourtsdecision.Theconflict
ofinterestcouldbeofanykind,includingafinancialinterest,apersonalconnection,or
anobligation,forexample,asamemberorofficerofsomeotherbody.Butultimately,
thequestionofwhatconflictsofinterestfallwithinthisdescriptionisaquestionforthe
court,takingintoaccountallthecircumstancesofthecase.
WithoutwishingtobeoverprescriptiveortolimitconsiderationbytheCivilProcedure
RulesCommittee,weareoftheviewthatconsiderationshouldbegiventorequiringan
experttomakeastatementattheendofhisreportonthefollowinglines:
(a)thathehasnoconflictofinterestofanykind,otherthananywhichhehasdisclosed
inhisreport
(b)thathedoesnotconsiderthatanyinterestwhichhehasdisclosedaffectshis
suitabilityasanexpertwitnessonanyissueonwhichhehasgivenevidence
(c)thathewilladvisethepartybywhomheisinstructedif,betweenthedateofhis
reportandthetrial,thereisanychangeincircumstanceswhichaffectshisanswersto
(a)or(b)above.
Asweseeit,aformofdeclarationtothiseffectshouldassistinremindingboththe
expertandthepartycallinghimoftheneedtoinformtheotherpartiesandthecourtof
anypossibleconflictofinterest.
However,thereappearstobeaninconsistencyinwhattheCourtofAppealhassaid
aboutapartynotneedingtonotifythecourtortheoppositionofanobviously
immaterialconflictofinterest,whentheproposedexpertsdeclarationcontainsno
suchqualification.HopefullytheCivilProcedureRulesCommitteewillrefinethe
wordingofthedeclarationonitspassageintotheRules.Fornow,though,expertsought
toadopttheformofwordssuggestedbytheCourtofAppeal.
Expertwitnessasadviser
Thegreatmajorityofcivilcasesaresettledbeforetheyreachcourt,andwithmanyof
themtheroleofanexpertmaygonofurtherthaninvestigatingthecircumstancesand
providingtheinstructingsolicitorwithaninterimreportorassessmentofthetechnical
strengthoftheclientscase.

Thisessentiallyadvisoryroleisenormouslyextendedifitshouldbedecidedtoproceed
totrial.Theexpertmaythenbeexpectedtoadviseon:
thetechnicalmattersadducedinthestatementofcase
thetechnicalcontentofrequestsforfurtherparticulars(ortheresponsestosuch
requests)
thetechnicalsignificanceofdocumentsdisclosedbytheopposingside.

aswellastoproducehisownreportforuseincourt.
Furthermore,afterreportshavebeenexchanged,theexpertwillprobablybeaskedfor
anassessmentofthereportpreparedbytheexpertfortheopposingside.Hemayalso
berequired,thenorearlier,toattendmeetingsofexpertswithaviewtonarrowing
issuesstillindispute.
Duringthehearingofacaseonthemultitrackanexpertwillnotonlyhavetoface
crossexaminationonhisownevidence,butbeonhandtoadvisecounselabout
weaknessestobeprobedinthatoftheopposingsidesexpert.Finally,theexpertmay
berequiredtoprovidefurthertechnicalsupportshouldthecasegotoappeal.
Itcanbeseenfromthisthatanexpertcanhaveseveraldistinctrolestoplayin
litigation,thattheseroleswilloverlapintimeandthattheymayextendoverthe
durationofacase,frominceptiontoappeal.Beinganexpertwitnessisnotjustacase
ofwritingreportsitcaninvolvemuchelsebesides.
Footnotes
1Orotherjudicialandquasijudicialbodies,e.g.tribunals,arbitrations,adjudications,
selectcommittees,officialinquiries.
2ForanoverviewoftheWoolfreformsseeFactsheet34,andforthetextofthatpartof
theCivilProcedureRuleswhichdealswithexpertevidence,seeFactsheet35.Thefull
textoftheRules,andthatoftheirassociatedpracticedirectionsandpreaction
protocols,maybeconsultedontheMinistryofJusticeswebsiteat
http://www.justice.gov.uk,butdownloadingthemfromtherecanbeatediousbusiness.
AmoreconvenientsourceistheRulesLexicon(RuLex)softwareproducedbyJS
Publications(asmallWindowsprogramprovidingthetextofmanyoftherulesof
expertpracticeandprocedureplustheabilitytosearchthroughthemsimplyand
quickly).FormoreinformationcontactJSPublicationson(01638)561590.
3TheclassicstatementoftheprinciplesofexpertevidenceisthatlaiddownbyMr
JusticeCresswellinhisjudgmentintheshippingcaseknownasTheIkarianReefer.For
furtherdetailsandadiscussionoftheCresswellprinciplesseeFactsheet4inthis
series.
4TothvJarman(2006)EWCACiv1028.
52003EWCACrim1020.
6GarethPearcevOveArupPartnership(2001)Lawtel.
Disclaimer
Theinformationcontainedhereinissuppliedforgeneralinformationpurposesonlyand
doesnotconstituteprofessionaladvice.NeitherJSPublicationsnortheauthorsaccept
responsibilityforanylossthatmayarisefromrelianceoninformationcontained
herein.Youshouldalwaysconsultasuitablyqualifiedadviseronanyspecificproblem
ormatter.
JSPublicationscanbecontactedat:
POBox505,Newmarket,SuffolkCB87TF
Tel:01638561590Fax:01638560924email:ukrew@jspubs.com

JSPublications2016[D]

Thissiteusessitespecific,nonpersonallyidentifiablecookiestowork.
Tofindoutmoreaboutthecookiesweuseandhowtodelete

them,optoutordisablecookies,seeourprivacynotice
Clicktoacknowledgethisnoticeandhideitinfuture