EWJ June 61 2025 web - Flipbook - Page 101
Judge Criticises Expert for
“Contaminat[ing] the Professionals
Meeting” – the Importance of
Following Best Practice During
Discussions
In a recent care order case, a medical expert’s conduct was criticised by the judge who stated that
her approach was “a cause for serious concern”.
Not only did her report lack “due diligence” leading
her to draw erroneous conclusions that the parents in
the case were at fault in causing harm to their children, but the impact of her “errors and closed
mind…went beyond her own individual evidence” in
tainting what was discussed in the experts’ meeting as
well.
This was disputed by the parents.
3. What were the fundamental errors in the medical
expert’s report?
The medical expert was subject to a detailed and
forensic cross examination by the mother’s counsel,
which was “nothing short of a demolition” of her evidence. In fact, the medical expert even concluded
herself that her evidence was partially “appalling”.
Read on to find out the facts of the case and how
essential it is that all participants understand the legal
requirements and implications of the joint meetings
between experts.
The fundamental errors that ran through the whole
of her evidence and beyond are:
l Her misidentification and confusion of the twins,
when reading the primary medical disclosure. This
was of seminal importance because different birth and
post birth experiences led to one of the twins being
weaker and more vulnerable. In addition, even at the
time of giving evidence in court, she still had not
tracked back to see how that error had impacted her
opinion in relation to each child, despite correcting it
in addendum.
Background
In LB Croydon v D (Critical Scrutiny of the Paedeatric
Overview) [2024] EWFC 438 HHJ, the family court
heard that the London Borough of Croydon was
seeking a care order for three children on the belief
that they had been harmed in the care of their
parents.
A medical expert was instructed to provide the
paediatric overview for the court as a key expert
witness. The expert’s duties included:
l Her misinterpretation of the primary medical evidence - stating that the twins had “bruising” when in
fact there was no primary medical evidence from the
treating clinicians that the twins had any bruises on
their bodies.
1. Providing a concise medical chronology taken from
the volume of available clinical medical data.
2. Clearly signposting the court to the relevant data.
3. Properly evaluating the evidence as to whether an
injury was inflicted or not.
4. What impact did the medical expert’s conduct
have on the experts’ meeting?
The role of an expert is to provide objective, unbiased
opinions to help a court, tribunal or jury understand
or resolve issues relating to a case that requires specialist knowledge. The evidence and conduct of an expert witness can determine the outcome of a case, with
potentially far-reaching consequences for the parties
involved.
4. Not being speculative.
5. Correcting errors in their own work and identify
errors in the work of others.
6. Limiting opinion evidence to their individual
specialty.
7. Revisiting past conclusion in the light of fresh
evidence.
As Deputy High Court Judge, Kathryn Major
correctly stated in this care order case, the medical
expert’s “approach…is a cause for serious concern.
There are real world consequences for children where
the professional medical advice is flawed, factually
inaccurate and lacking in enquiry and analysis.”
8. Not removing evidence of relevance from the
judge's determination.
What conclusions did the medical expert reach?
The medical expert set out in her report her
professional opinion that the medical evidence
pointed to the children having suffered ‘inflicted
non-accidental injuries’.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
If the medical expert’s evidence had not been
discredited by the mother’s counsel during cross99
JUNE 2025
