Falling short

When in 2009, Professor Ireland proposed to evaluate expert witness reports written by psychologists for the family court, she was meeting an obvious need. Lawyers muttered darkly at the variable quality of psychological reports. The chatter in robing rooms tended to be that psychologists, or psychiatrists, when asked to provide clarity, too often delivered reams of information with too much equivocation to be useful.

Professor Ireland proposed to evaluate reports produced during an 18-month period, establish the fit of evidence and opinion to instruction and develop a protocol for better standards. The research was to be showcased at British Psychological Society (BPS) and Family Justice Council (FJC) conferences.

It didn’t work out like that. Her results fitted neatly into the prevailing anti expert-witness, efficiency savings agenda and gained sensationalised media attention. The FJC, who part-commissioned the work, declined to publish it and excluded the research from their seminars; it has yet to be published in an academic journal.

Courting