Expert Witness Issues – Not Just Dentistry
- Details
- Published: Wednesday, 18 June 2025 08:13
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 855
Commentators on some of the big dento-legal cases of the last decade have called into question the quality of expert witnesses.
Put simply, it has often appeared that the GDC were selecting the most willing guns for hire, rather than independent experts. A recent newspaper feature demonstrates that this has not just been a dental problem, and references two major cases that the general public will be familiar with.
The feature noted that politicians, lawyers and doctors were now expressing concern over the use of expert witnesses in English courts. Questions were being raised about potential miscarriages of justice after their use had been heavily criticised in both the Lucy Letby and Post Office Horizon cases.
Those who have found themselves on the end of some of the GDC’s more questionable choices of expert, will appreciate the irony in the observation that a lack of regulation over the use of expert witnesses, could be leading to miscarriages of justice.
Former attorney general Dominic Grieve (pictured) and the former justice secretary Jack Straw were among those who told the Guardian that criminal and civil trials were sometimes hanging on evidence by self-appointed “experts” who could lack relevant knowledge.
Grieve warned that although experts were supposed to be independent, they often came across as being “hired guns”. He went on to describe situations where expert witnesses could make people feel comfortable about making decisions when “quite frankly, the evidence isn’t there.”
Concerns over the use of expert witnesses have been raised in relation to the case of Lucy Letby, the neonatal nurse convicted of murdering seven babies. Lawyers appealing against her conviction argue that the expert evidence presented at her trial was flawed.
Expert witnesses were also criticised during the Post Office scandal, where sub postmasters were convicted of stealing, based on evidence from IT experts that has been subject to criticism.
Expert witnesses are used in both criminal and civil courts to give information and opinion on matters relevant to the case that would be considered outside the knowledge of a judge or jury.
They are supposed to give an objective and unbiased opinion, according to guidelines from the Crown Prosecution Service, and can be instructed by the prosecution and the defence. But there are no formal controls on who can describe themselves as an expert, nor specific training required to ensure their understanding of legal procedure.
Jack Straw, spoke of his “nagging worry” that expert witnesses were not being properly regulated.
Nazir Afzal, the former crown prosecutor for the North-West, referred to some of the flaws in the system as it presently operates. In particular he mentioned “expert shopping”, where lawyers will consult different experts until they find one who will say what they need them to. This is an accusation that has repeatedly been made against the GDC.
The law firm Bond Solon carry out an annual survey into improving standards of expert evidence. Over a third of experts who responded to the 2024 survey said they had experienced “hired gun” experts in their field in the previous year, referring to people who provide “evidence to substantiate the opinion preferred by the instructing party”. One in four said they had been pressured by solicitors to produce biased opinions.
Expert witnesses are paid for their time, and although in criminal cases – particularly those funded via legal aid – it is not always very lucrative, people can make large sums in civil and medico-legal work.
Former president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Professor Sir Norman Williams carried out a government commissioned review of cases against medical professionals in 2018 that found widespread concern about expert witnesses. There were issues with “the quality and consistency of opinion provided by healthcare professionals acting as expert witnesses” that may not be uncovered until trial or appeal. Recommendations were made for more training.
The comments from Jonathan Lord, an NHS consultant gynaecologist and co-chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists abortion taskforce, were especially worrying. He said there is concern amongst doctors about some witness evidence used in the courts. “They are hired by one side, not the court, and many have substantial earnings from this work, so conflicts of interest that would not be acceptable in other professional spheres are embedded into the system,” he said. “While they are supposed to be neutral, given the large payments involved and the need to be called and engaged again in the future, it’s hard to be reassured that bias doesn’t creep in.”
With the quasi legal nature of the GDC’s Fitness to Practice (FtP) process, one can only hope that this will be the beginning of a serious debate about the role, selection and actual expertise, of expert witnesses, and lead to improvements.
It does not help that there is a lack of agreed standards, let alone a proper register, for dental expert witnesses. Indeed one particular individual who was heavily criticised in major GDC FtP cases, held a senior role in the organisation that is now belatedly hoping to clean up the market in dental expert witnesses.
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report
My comments