While we have already commented on the broader issue of the competition between continuing professional development (CPD)and court responsibilities, Biggadike v El Farra & El-Neil has also demonstrated the strength credible witnesses bring to a case.

Expert witnesses have often played a pivotal role in strengthening a case. However, what makes an expert witness credible is a matter that is often up for debate. In this recent case, the answer would appear to be complete professionalism

Standing up to scrutiny

It is imperative that an expert witness stands up to scrutiny. Any questionable behaviour by the expert witness or failure to disclose any meaningful connections with other parties within a trial can shake even the strongest of cases.  In this clinical negligence claim, both parties relied on expert witnesses. However, two of the expert witnesses were put under scrutiny when it was revealed that they had decided to attend a professional conference during the trial.

The opposition attempted to question their professionalism, citing potential bias and a lack of commitment to the case. Furthermore, the opposition suggested that there may be a potential financial personal interest in the outcome of the case.

What was decided?

The judge quickly dismissed the allegations against the expert witnesses. In summarising her decision, she emphasised that both experts had completely and meticulously fulfilled their responsibilities to the court. Both witnesses had provided a joint statement as well as comprehensive written reports.

It was clear that there was a readiness and preparedness to act as expert witnesses, which would make it very difficult for any judge to discredit such testimony simply for the additional commitment to professional development demonstrated by attending the conference in question.

Wider Implications

This makes a very valid point. When expert witnesses act professionally and approach the court process completely prepared to fulfil their responsibilities, it is extremely difficult to question their credibility. If an expert witness adheres to court rules and ethical guidelines, this puts them in a solid position to withstand any scrutiny.

The decision, in this case, may have wider implications in the legal landscape. It is obviously quite likely that many expert witnesses will have at least met or collaborated before attending a matter before the court. This case exemplifies that reliance should be on the objectivity of the evidence and its quality rather than any irrelevant future meetings or collaborations between the parties.

Advice for Expert Witnesses

A key takeaway from this case for anyone called on to act as an expert witness is to ensure that written reports are thoroughly prepared and you are ready to answer any questions during a cross examination. Furthermore, you must recognise that the primary role you have is to help the court reach a just decision. Your evidence should be unbiased, objective, and based on your professional knowledge and skills. Furthermore, it is vital that you are upfront about any prior relationships or collaborations with any other party involved in the case and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. 

Such conflicts may not lead to your evidence being dismissed. Rather, if you can stand up to the scrutiny it may put you under, your evidence could be considered entirely credible.