Expert evidence: too technical for juries?

Juries are not equipped to understand technical expert evidence, according to 60% of experts surveyed by Bond Solon.

The expert witness training company’s first joint national annual survey, in association with The Times newspaper, surveyed more than 750 expert witnesses.

Mark Solon, chairman of Wilmington Legal and founder of Bond Solon, said the concern about juries “could either be due to experts not explaining things properly or clearly enough or because the issue is so complex ordinary citizens can’t be expected to understand.

“If the former, then experts may need further training and perhaps judges should allow different types of evidence to help juries understand, for example, videos or demonstration aids. If the latter, then it could be argued that the judge should direct the jury on the issues having had advice from the expert direct.”

The survey highlights concern about the impact of criticism of experts, notably in the ongoing case of Dr Wayney Squire, who disputed the existence of shaken baby syndrome and claims she was struck off as a result. She has appealed.

Two-thirds of respondents think the pressure of criticism may deter experts from giving evidence in the future and more than a quarter say they have considered stopping work as an expert witness in the past 12 months. Reasons for stopping include the risk of being sued in contract or negligence since the case of Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 (33%). One quarter cite the risk of disciplinary proceedings.

The experts also report coming under pressure over their impartiality. More than 46% have come across a “hired gun” in the past 12 months, and 30% have been asked or felt pressurised to change their report by an instructing party. Comments from the experts reveal alarming examples of this pressure, including being asked to inflate care costs, delete parts of their report and change the prognosis and diagnosis, and having fees withheld as leverage to alter the report.

Meanwhile, a poll of 154 experts by the Expert Witness Institute has found that “hot tubbing” – the practice of experts giving evidence concurrently – is assisting the courts, saving time and reducing costs.