“A lack of accreditation of expert witnesses means that anyone with a scientific background and sufficient ‘brass neck’ could set themselves up as a forensic science expert and mislead the court, a Court of Appeal judge has warned.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 23rd November 2010
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Expert Evidence in Criminal Courts – the Problem – Speech by Lord Justice Leveson – Forensic Science Society, 18th November 2010.”
Judiciary of England and Wales, 18th November 2010
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“A couple cleared of injuring their baby son have won a legal battle to identify the doctor who gave evidence against them.”
Daily Telegraph, 22nd August 2010
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A Buckinghamshire childminder has lost an appeal against her conviction for killing a baby in her care.”
BBC News, 17th June 2010
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Controversial paediatrician David Southall was today restored to the medical register after the court of appeal rejected a decision of the General Medical Council (GMC) to strike him off.”
The Guardian, 4th May 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Courts are refusing applications to take children into care because some members of the judiciary hold social workers in such low esteem that they do not trust their evidence, it will be claimed this week in a major study.”
The Guardian, 8th March 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Ministry of Justice announces the launch of a new project to review current fee arrangements and deliver new fee structures for professional expert witnesses.”
Ministry of Justice, 3rd March 2010
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
“A chief constable was criticised by three judges today for defying a high court order to return computer hard drives containing evidence of suspected child abuse to an expert witness.”
The Guardian, 16th June 2009
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A chief constable could face jail and an end to his 35-year police career for defying a High Court order to return computers suspected of holding a huge collection of child abuse images to a controversial expert witness.”
The Times, 27th May 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Defendants are at risk of being wrongly convicted on the evidence of ‘charlatan’ and ‘biased’ expert witnesses, the Government’s law reform body warns today.”
The Times, 7th April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“We published a consultation paper on 7 April 2009, in which we have made a number of provisional proposals which would reform the law governing the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. A press release is also available.”
Law Commission, 7th April 2009
Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk
“Criminals could have been wrongly freed by the courts because of unreliable evidence from expert witnesses, the Government’s law advisers say today.”
Daily Telegraph, 6th April 2009
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Scientists, doctors and other experts are to be stopped from giving misleading evidence in court after a series of miscarriages of justice involving unreliable testimony, under proposals published today.”
The Independent, 7th April 2009
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Paediatrician David Southall is to begin an attempt to overturn a General Medical Council (GMC) decision to strike him off the medical register.”
BBC News, 31st March 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A tribunal has admitted making inappropriate remarks about an academic at Oxford University, issuing a public apology and agreeing to pay costs and damages after he accused it of libel in what is believed to be the first instance of its kind.”
The Guardian, 27th October 2008
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance plc
Court of Appeal
“An expert’s report was of little value in evaluating the likelihood of trade-mark confusion from the standpoint of a consumer.”
The Times, 5th September 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A judge has said that expert evidence in trade mark disputes is rarely likely to be relevant when it comes to deciding if a consumer will be confused by two supposedly similar marks.”
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance plc [2008] EWCA Civ 842; [2008] WLR (D) 252
“Since a trade mark case which raised the critical issue of confusion would be assessed from the viewpoint of the average consumer, the cogency of the evidence of an expert as to his own opinion, where the tribunal was in a position to form its own view, was in real doubt. The facts spoke for themselves. Consumer surveys were costly to produce and their results, when based upon the wrong questions, of no evidential value. To be commended was the practice of giving case management directions at an interim stage which required the parties to seek directions of the court (which could be given in advance of the trial) as to any proposed survey that the parties might wish to put in evidence at trial.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Two ‘caring and supportive’ parents have won a high court ruling clearing them of deliberately harming their six-week-old baby, despite a conclusion by the seven medical experts in the case that his injuries were most likely to have been caused by intentional shaking.”
The Guardian, 12th May 2008
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A doctor accused of giving false evidence in the trial of a mother accused of killing her son by poisoning him with salt will not be prosecuted.”
BBC News, 23rd April 2008
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024