The past 5 years have seen numerous court judgments and changes to rules and procedures that relate to the work of expert psychiatric witnesses in the British Isles. This article outlines these changes, pointing out their implications for the expert witness, and highlights pertinent judgments in over 100 court and tribunal cases.

When admitting patients to hospital and treating them, psychiatrists and other health professionals may need to deprive them of their liberty. Where this occurs, professionals will need to work within a statutory framework to practice legally and protect their patients’ right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Within England and Wales, some clinical scenarios will require a choice to be made between the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and its Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This choice can be complex, is often overlooked and frequently misunderstood in clinical practice. Deciding between the two frameworks must be done on a case-specific basis. With the use of code of practice guidelines, case law and an unfolding clinical scenario we aim in this article to support clinicians in taking a clear-sighted approach to the dilemma and the factors to consider when deciding between the two regimes.

The Parole Board for England and Wales advises on the release, recall and licence conditions of a small subgroup of prisoners serving determinate sentences and the majority of those serving indeterminate sentences. Since the establishment of the Parole Board in 1968, the parole process has been shaped and clarified by further legislation and case law. In certain scenarios, psychiatric expert evidence may be sought to inform the Board's determination of whether a prisoner can be safely released into the community. Psychiatrists preparing expert reports for the Parole Board should be familiar with the current operationalisation of parole. This involves an understanding not only of the functioning of the Parole Board, but also of the criminal justice context in which prisoners subject to parole are managed. Having set the scene, by describing the role of the Parole Board and the wider context, this article examines how to undertake assessments and complete psychiatric reports for the Board.

The introduction of new legislation in 2006 brought about changes to the way citizenship applications were considered in the UK. Over the intervening years, several hundred children born in the UK have been denied British citizenship as a result of changes to the ‘good character’ requirement in the legislation – namely its extension to cover all those aged 10 years or older applying for citizenship, including individuals who were born in the UK. As a result of the formulaic way in which this requirement is assessed, citizenship can be denied on the basis of historical patterns of behaviour or offending from childhood. This article will consider whether the current approach to assessment of character in the context of applications for British citizenship is meaningful or appropriate, given developments in our understanding of normative psychological and neurological development and also the impact of psychosocial adversity, trauma, and broader psychopathological or neurodevelopmental conditions.

This article critically reviews the case law, guidance and standards related to the provision of expert psychiatric evidence in immigration and asylum cases in the UK. It discusses the potentially complex and medico-legally challenging process of psychiatric evaluation of asylum seekers, and the implications of the presence of psychiatric disorders for issues such as the individual's ability to give oral evidence in court, immigration detention, fitness to fly, removal, deportation, ability to reintegrate into the destination country and appeal rights. To give context to the discussion, it outlines the asylum process in the UK from claiming asylum, initial screening and the ‘substantive interview’ to, if a claim is rejected, appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), detention and the removal process.

To make a valid will, a person should be able to understand the nature and consequences of doing so, the extent of their estate and the claims others may have on it. No disorder of mind should be present that would affect their testamentary decisions, and clinicians are therefore often asked to give an opinion on whether a person has testamentary capacity. This article discusses the legal issues involved, with reference to UK case law (in particular, the legal test of Banks v Goodfellow (1870)), and outlines the requirements of testamentary capacity assessment (including retrospective assessments), the clinician's responsibilities when requested by a solicitor to make an assessment of capacity (‘the golden rule’) and what they might expect if appearing in court to give expert witness regarding testamentary capacity. Fictitious case studies are presented illustrating certain points in testamentary capacity assessment.

This article reviews some of the various shorter cognitive tests that are available. They vary in complexity, time taken to administer them and what specific neurocognitive domains they assess. They range from screening tests such as the Mini-Cog to more detailed measures such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment or the Mini-Mental State Examination. The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination is more comprehensive and covers attention, memory, verbal fluency, language and visuo-spatial function. The article suggests areas of cognition that may be related to the six competencies assessed in the determination of fitness to plead and to stand trial.

The history of the Grange Annual Conference is traced to its roots in the work of Sir William Norwood East, the Royal Medico-Psychological Association and Waddiloves Hospital in Bradford, UK.

This article considers the role of experts and their interaction with the legal system to better understand the benefits and potential dangers of expert evidence to fact-finders in trials. Medical experts are indispensable to the administration of justice as litigation ranges beyond what judges or juries comfortably deal with as facts of everyday life. This would render courts, absent expert evidence, vastly under-equipped in making decisions of fact. However, the dangers of surrendering authority to experts or of misunderstanding their role must be considered to ensure that expert evidence is used to benefit the administration of justice.

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) (which includes euthanasia and assisted suicide) is available in an increasing number of countries. In Belgium, The Netherlands and Switzerland (and was due to be implemented in Canada from 2024) eligibility includes mental suffering in the absence of any physical disorder. There are particular ethical and legal issues when considering MAiD for those involuntarily detained in prisons and hospitals. We describe four recent cases that illustrate these complexities, and highlight issues of equivalence of healthcare and self-determination against concerns about the criteria for determining eligibility of those with non-terminal conditions as well as the objections raised by victims and families and the demands for justice.

Many authors have considered the ethical dilemmas of a doctor being both the treating physician and expert witness in litigation. The debate has often focused on the potential for bias and the adverse impact being an expert witness can have on the therapeutic alliance. Much of this debate seems rooted in the ethic of non-maleficence. In this article we attempt to examine the other end of this ethical quandary. Using a pragmatic approach, we explore these conflicts and consider biases from other sources. Ultimately, taking on the mantle of both roles is becoming increasingly unavoidable. Hence we argue that, although there are challenges, embracing this dual role can be an important part of holistic treatment, risk management and the pursuit of the ethical principle of justice.

The enormous impact of mental illness on work and productivity is a global challenge, with immense costs to wider society. Now is the time for action, with new international guidelines and an emergent consensus on occupational mental healthcare. Alongside governments, organisations and employers, psychiatrists have a leading role to play.