Content area
Full text
Introduction
An expert witness is qualified by his or her knowledge or experience to give an opinion on a particular issue(s) to a court. The role of the expert doctor is to provide an opinion based on his or her technical knowledge and opinion and assist the court in deciding the matter before it. This requires more than the qualities and skills of a competent clinician; an expert witness requires the ability to communicate the findings and opinions clearly, concisely and in a form acceptable to the courts, with a clear understanding of the duties and responsibilities put upon them (British Medical Association (BMA), 2007).
The role of today's expert witness can be tracked back to the late eighteenth century when the following judgement was made: “The opinion of men upon proven facts may be given by men of science within their own science”. Further milestone cases highlighted the importance of adequate skill, opinions being based on facts, and of an unbiased opinion, as well as other duties and responsibilities (Rix, 1999). Best practice in this area today is informed by a number of national sources, including guidelines issued by Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) (2008), the General Medical Council (GMC) (2008), the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (2010) and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (2005). Higher training in all specialities of psychiatry should include mastering the competencies involved in medico-legal work and should be based on national guidance. Most psychiatrists receive occasional requests from solicitors to provide reports, and adequate training allows psychiatrists to make timely and informed decisions about whether to accept such approaches, and to prepare high-quality reports (Thompson, 2011).
In recent years there have been a number of high-profile cases where medical experts have attracted criticism. Several cases have collapsed after expert medical witnesses were found to have given erroneous evidence. This has led to claims to expertise being scrutinised much more closely. The case of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who was found guilty of professional misconduct as an expert witness by the GMC, but later exonerated by the High Court, was the focus of intense media speculation and sent warning signs to expert witnesses (Lewis, 2004; Rix, 2008). In 2011, in a landmark...