Thompson Reference Thompson1 and Rix Reference Rix2 make particularly interesting statements regarding continuing professional education in the area of providing expert reports. I generally agree with the requirements listed by Thompson, with the exception of expecting the psychiatrist to have had specific training in being an expert witness. It seems to me that, although advice about conduct in court is prudent, the requirement of specific training is redundant. The competence and expertise of the witness should rapidly become apparent to the court during the process of giving evidence and being cross-examined.
The testing of a witness's competence is strictly a matter for the court. Indeed, one of the attractions of my medico-legal work over the past 40 years has been that my knowledge and competence are examined in a very rigorous manner by counsel in the course of giving evidence. I would be concerned if our own professional body were to suggest that an answer in court that one had met the accepted requirements of training as a witness were to replace this.
If the courts were to need such support from our College, it would imply that the general level of competence at the Bar is insufficient and our colleagues at the Inns of Court may need to reconsider their training. For ourselves, our expertise resides in psychiatry with an understanding of the law, not being experts at the law.
Open access
eLetters
No eLetters have been published for this article.