This just in: new standards to raise the quality of expert evidence became law today.
The new standards follow the laws implemented in April of this year which were designed to speed up court process by engaging professional opinion only when a judge considers it necessary to resolve a case justly. We think that sounds silly and ironic, but what do we know.
GOV.UK’s website tells us:
The standards include making sure that the expert:
- has knowledge appropriate to the court case
- has been active in the area of work or practice and has sufficient experience of the issues relevant to the case
- is either regulated or accredited to a registered body where this is appropriate
- has relevant qualifications and has received appropriate training
- complies with safeguarding requirements
You can catch the consultation documents here:
Researching Reform 
Just because there is a criteria for what are the optimum requirements to be an expert for a family court doesn’t mean the experts necessarily meet the requirements or will ever do so!
With psychology, how is it verifiable when psychology is not a science but such an unquantifiable subject open to interpretation? The medical profession is also at odds with each other with differing opinions expressed as to the cause of injury. In the past set opinions have been disproved as more knowledge had been attained.
Most of these experts are only expert at telling the judge what social workers want!
Anyone can say they are qualified but qualified in what and when?
Who checks up on them?
Anyone it appears can call themselves a doctor but you don’t have to be qualified as a medical doctor! It’s misleading and when such an expert, who calls himself a doctor but isn’t, proffers his opinion on medical matters, that he is not qualified to make, who stops him? The judge may assume he is a doctor and his opinion matters but the reality is he knows what he needs to say to appease the social workers and collect his fee!
LikeLike
Hi Dana, thank you. I have also tried to find these guidelines/ this new law but am having trouble locating it! Not a great start….
LikeLike
If these are to be the Rules, then they are pathetic. They would not even exclude anyone with a couple of months of post-qualifying social work practice.
They obviously have given no consideration to the Daubert Rules (USA) or the Makita Rules (Aust) regarding expert requirements or those set in Evidence Act or the judicial statements in the Sally Clark case and followed by further statements by Justice Butler-Sloss.
Rules for expert witnesses should begin with : Is fully cognisant with the most recent research in their respective field of practice and the countervailing research and with learned articles on the subject matter.
They should also be made aware that their reports can be submitted to other respected individuals in their relevant professional community for Forensic Appraisal review.
Too many “experts’ pursue their own amor propre’ and preferences and ignore countervailing research and professional opinions.
LikeLike