A study of judicial dissatisfaction with, and criticism of, expert healthcare witnesses

The majority of healthcare professionals discharge satisfactorily their civic duty to aid the execution of public justice by assisting courts and tribunals and may have their assistance gratefully acknowledged in a judgment that is on the public record. However, the conduct of a minority causes judicial dissatisfaction and sometimes criticism. The British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) online resource for the period September 2019 to August 2025 has been used to identify such cases. Examples are given of healthcare expert practice which have repeatedly caused concern: absent, insufficient or unclear reasoning; misuse, or failure to cite, literature; inaccuracy; failure to triangulate self-reported history with other evidence; failure to keep up with evidence; inappropriate language; late introduction of evidence; disregard, omission or misrepresentation of instructions; inadequate treatment of issues; failure to comply with procedural rules and guidance; partisanship; absent or inadequate referencing; incomplete range of opinion; misunderstanding of legal test; ignorance or disregard of procedural rules or guidance; disregard of, or challenge to, previous factual findings; acting outside expertise; omitting evidence that undermines opinion; unwillingness to make reasonable concessions; misuse of, or failure to refer to, relevant clinical guidelines; criticism of other experts; and dishonesty. Expert healthcare witnesses whose conduct results in judicial dissatisfaction or criticism appear to be unaware of, or to misunderstand, the duties of an expert witness or to act in disregard of them.