Who vets expert witnesses to see if they ARE experts?
Discussion
In the light of this obvious breakdown in the system, I wondered who checks to see if so called expert witnesses are asa good as they claim they are, and how reliable their evidence is.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/ex...
It is not the first time experts have failed - the LTI 20/20 was for years supported in court by an "expert" whose expertise and impartiality were called into question, while other experts who claimed to be members of professional bodies, were found to have allowed their membership to lapse.
I also wonder what incentive these people had to lie - was their work rewarded with an incentive to lie in favour of their clients, or was their no financial reward for them at all, just a God complex inspired wish to be involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/ex...
It is not the first time experts have failed - the LTI 20/20 was for years supported in court by an "expert" whose expertise and impartiality were called into question, while other experts who claimed to be members of professional bodies, were found to have allowed their membership to lapse.
I also wonder what incentive these people had to lie - was their work rewarded with an incentive to lie in favour of their clients, or was their no financial reward for them at all, just a God complex inspired wish to be involved?
BMWBen said:
I suspect it's up to the other party in the case to present evidence that they are not as expert as they claim to be.
I think that is right. The Court itself will not do it. See the CPR Part 35 Practice Direction https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/...In my filed (Intellectual Property) a huge amount of effort goes into selecting Experts, and both sides have them. I have read of some horrors, though, in other fields where one side has an expert and the other does not. Even a basic knowledge of science or maths should have been enough to know that the so-called expert opinion was rubbish, but the other side had nobody with the knowledge to understand that. I am thinking of this decision http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6086792.stm where the expert said there was a 1 in 73 million chance of two cot deaths in a family. Actually the chance, once there is one cot death, is 1 in 200 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4723778.stm.
Truffles said:
the expert said there was a 1 in 73 million chance of two cot deaths in a family. Actually the chance, once there is one cot death, is 1 in 200 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4723778.stm.
Surely that number would vary dependent on how many future children were born?My point is that even 'corrected' figures can be subject to many variables.
Truffles said:
the expert said there was a 1 in 73 million chance of two cot deaths in a family. Actually the chance, once there is one cot death, is 1 in 200
I always take a bomb with me when I get on a plane, for protection. After all, what are the chances of 2 bombs being taken on? 
Mill Wheel said:
In the light of this obvious breakdown in the system, I wondered who checks to see if so called expert witnesses are asa good as they claim they are, and how reliable their evidence is.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/ex...
It is not the first time experts have failed - the LTI 20/20 was for years supported in court by an "expert" whose expertise and impartiality were called into question, while other experts who claimed to be members of professional bodies, were found to have allowed their membership to lapse.
I also wonder what incentive these people had to lie - was their work rewarded with an incentive to lie in favour of their clients, or was their no financial reward for them at all, just a God complex inspired wish to be involved?
In the linked case it is, perhaps, easy enough to work out why they gave perjured evidence. However, there are many other cases of expert witnesses being shown as making it up. There was a case a few years ago where an expert witness was instrumental in a conviction for arson when there was no evidence of the fire being deliberately started. There was a book used to calculate speed of impact that was shown to be little more than a guess.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/ex...
It is not the first time experts have failed - the LTI 20/20 was for years supported in court by an "expert" whose expertise and impartiality were called into question, while other experts who claimed to be members of professional bodies, were found to have allowed their membership to lapse.
I also wonder what incentive these people had to lie - was their work rewarded with an incentive to lie in favour of their clients, or was their no financial reward for them at all, just a God complex inspired wish to be involved?
As for reasons, I don't think these people do it maliciously. Some individual and groups will come up with an idea and defend it to death even when it is shown to be wrong. It's being human. There are a number of cases where even scientists will ignore evidence that contradicts what they know. Try and convince a creationist that the earth might be, perhaps, a fortnight older than what it says in their book.
I have done this a few times, though I have never been cross examined in court.
It is an adversarial relationship - the other side will look at your opinion in detail and try to pick holes in it. If it ends up in court, then even moreso. If it is mediation, rather than in court, then you may have a conversation with the expert witness on the other side and agree common ground.
You may have an expert with a very precise and in-depth knowledge of the problem or you may have an expert who is a generalist in their field and gives their opinion. Obv the first is better, but people with that level of knowledge in a very specific subject may be in short supply.
The questions on cost of replacement vehicles or the chance of a second cot death if there has already been one cot death are relatively simple. Somebody with a generalist knowledge in the field should be able to form an opinion with appropriate research.
It is an adversarial relationship - the other side will look at your opinion in detail and try to pick holes in it. If it ends up in court, then even moreso. If it is mediation, rather than in court, then you may have a conversation with the expert witness on the other side and agree common ground.
You may have an expert with a very precise and in-depth knowledge of the problem or you may have an expert who is a generalist in their field and gives their opinion. Obv the first is better, but people with that level of knowledge in a very specific subject may be in short supply.
The questions on cost of replacement vehicles or the chance of a second cot death if there has already been one cot death are relatively simple. Somebody with a generalist knowledge in the field should be able to form an opinion with appropriate research.
Letting your professional membership lapse is not, by itself, an indication that you are not an expert. If I let my membership lapse, it would not change what I know or don't know.
But given some form of professional membership is usually important when selecting an expert witness, letting it lapse may well be the sign of a plonker.
But given some form of professional membership is usually important when selecting an expert witness, letting it lapse may well be the sign of a plonker.
creampuff said:
Letting your professional membership lapse is not, by itself, an indication that you are not an expert. If I let my membership lapse, it would not change what I know or don't know.
But given some form of professional membership is usually important when selecting an expert witness, letting it lapse may well be the sign of a plonker.
How about still claiming to be a member when you are not ? But given some form of professional membership is usually important when selecting an expert witness, letting it lapse may well be the sign of a plonker.
As a member of the RICS I am expected to comply with certain rules on how I act when an expert witness. Membership gives a degree of reassurance to others in that regard. The first thing one has to do is demonstrate why I am sufficiently expert to be an expert.
I for one would not like to be cross examined about something I wasn't comfortable with. That is not the same as saying you don't know in response to a pesky barristers question.
I for one would not like to be cross examined about something I wasn't comfortable with. That is not the same as saying you don't know in response to a pesky barristers question.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/ex...
A serious perversion of the course of justice results in sentences as much as 13 months?
A serious perversion of the course of justice results in sentences as much as 13 months?
Mill Wheel said:
Derek Smith said:
In the linked case it is, perhaps, easy enough to work out why they gave perjured evidence.
I was puzzled - if they had a cosy arrangement with a "cheaper" hire company I could understand it.But the hire has already taken place, so how do they benefit?
Guardian report said:
In thousands of cases, the now defunct Autofocus provided insurance companies with expert rate surveyors who disputed the daily rate the hire car specialists Accident Exchange Ltd could claim for providing replacement vehicles.
The experts, who are estimated to have saved insurance companies millions of pounds, were found guilty of contempt for untruthfully stating that they had checked the spot rates for comparable vehicles within a locality and that the Accident Exchange charges were inflated and excessive.
So they embarked on a course of action which benefited the Insurance Companies to the tune of millions... didn't the insurance companies realise?The experts, who are estimated to have saved insurance companies millions of pounds, were found guilty of contempt for untruthfully stating that they had checked the spot rates for comparable vehicles within a locality and that the Accident Exchange charges were inflated and excessive.
Did Autofocus get any of the millions?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff