Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:32:30.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pool judgment has not changed the law of expert evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Keith J. B. Rix ,
Nigel Eastman ,
Anthony Haycroft  and
Gwen Adshead
Keith J. B. Rix
Affiliation:
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Medical Jurisprudence, School of Medicine, University of Chester
Nigel Eastman
Affiliation:
St George's University of London
Anthony Haycroft
Affiliation:
Serjeants Inn Chambers
Gwen Adshead
Affiliation:
Southern Health Foundation Trust and Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust. Email: keith@drkeithrix.co.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Columns
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 211 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 398
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2017 

We are concerned that the editorial by Series & Herring Reference Series and Herring1 is likely falsely to give readers the impression that the Pool judgment represents a change in the law of expert evidence. The judgment has not changed the law in any way. And we would advise doctors who work, or wish to work, as experts should read the detailed analysis of the current law concerning the definition, in law, of expertise recently published in BJPsych Advances. Reference Rix, Haycroft and Eastman2 This includes a review of the seminal cases, and also some other recent relevant judgments, none of which is referred to in the editorial. Psychiatrists undertaking expert witness practice should also refer to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' College Report CR193, Reference Rix, Eastman and Adshead3 soon to be amended after discussions with professional and regulatory authorities so as to make the law as clear as possible to experts.

References

1 Series, H, Herring, J. Doctor in court: what do lawyers really need from doctors, and what can doctors learn from lawyers? Br J Psychiatry 2017; 211: 135–6.Google Scholar
2 Rix, K, Haycroft, A, Eastman, N. Danger in deep water or just ripples in the pool: has the Pool judgment changed the law on expert evidence? BJPsych Adv 2017; 23: 347–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Rix, K, Eastman, N, Adshead, G. Responsibilities of Psychiatrists Who Provide Expert Opinion to Courts and Tribunals (College Report CR193). Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2015.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.