Expert witness evidence in the coroner’s court: Distinctions from civil litigation

Healthcare professionals often serve as expert witnesses in coroners’ courts and have to provide reports, but the specific requirements have not been clearly articulated. The Chief Coroner’s Bench Book advises that expert reports should follow Civil Procedure Rules Part 35, yet the inquisitorial nature of coronial proceedings creates important differences from civil litigation. In keeping with the Coroners and Justice Act, experts must avoid language that implies civil or criminal liability on the part of a named person when opining on standards of care; instead, they should express themselves in neutral terms. Unlike civil litigation, where a ‘but for’ test applies to proving causation, on balance of probabilities, the coronial threshold requires identification of the acts or omissions that contributed more than minimally, negligibly or trivially to death. Understanding these distinctions is essential to produce reports that are appropriate both in law and in purpose.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medico-Legal Journal
Published
2026-10-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00258172261469711
Primary Topic
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Expert witness evidence in the coroner’s court: Distinctions from civil litigation

Abeezar Ismail Sarela, Paul Marks
Medico-Legal Journal
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
article

Expert witness evidence in the coroner’s court: Distinctions from civil litigation

Abeezar Ismail Sarela, Paul Marks
article en

Abstract

Healthcare professionals often serve as expert witnesses in coroners’ courts and have to provide reports, but the specific requirements have not been clearly articulated. The Chief Coroner’s Bench Book advises that expert reports should follow Civil Procedure Rules Part 35, yet the inquisitorial nature of coronial proceedings creates important differences from civil litigation. In keeping with the Coroners and Justice Act, experts must avoid language that implies civil or criminal liability on the part of a named person when opining on standards of care; instead, they should express themselves in neutral terms. Unlike civil litigation, where a ‘but for’ test applies to proving causation, on balance of probabilities, the coronial threshold requires identification of the acts or omissions that contributed more than minimally, negligibly or trivially to death. Understanding these distinctions is essential to produce reports that are appropriate both in law and in purpose.

Medico-Legal Journal
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), Hull City Council (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon