The expert witness industry is a large one and critical to the administration of justice. Lawyers and parties go to some lengths to ensure that they have the right experts on their cases. This can involve significant time and expense during the selection process.
Mistakes are made surprisingly often in experts' CVs. CVs remain important not just when selecting experts but when a court or tribunal is weighing up the expert's evidence, usually against that of a competing expert. Unsurprisingly the expert's qualifications and experience are highly material.
The sentencing yesterday of expert witness, Terence Bates, who had claimed he had a degree when he had never studied at university will be noted by experts as well as the lawyers and parties who instruct them. It was an extreme, but not unique, case. The court heard that Bates specialised in cases involving internet child pornography and was an undoubted expert in his field. However, in one case he was asked in cross-examination if he had a degree and apparently replied: "That is correct." He made a similar statement in other cases which did not reach trial. Bates said that he thought he was entitled to claim the degree because of his RAF training at the start of his career.
The judge said it was not suggested that Bates' evidence had adversely affected the outcome of any trials. He gave Bates six months imprisonment, suspended for two years, for perjury and making false written statements.
For experts this case may cause them to double check their CVs (which should already be entirely truthful, accurate and up to date). Unless they do something dishonest or silly, most errors should not involve criminal sanctions. However, given an expert's overriding duty to the court, he should not expect to get off lightly under cross-examination or when the court gives judgment (given the readiness of some judges to criticise experts who appear before them). A case from 2000 (Raiss v Palmano) suggests that an expert may be immune from suit from the party instructing him should his evidence not be accepted because he has misled the court about his qualifications and expertise. This general immunity, for work done at and in connection with trial, is unlikely to survive (click here for further details).
Those who instruct experts will continue to have to rely upon their expert for honesty and accuracy. Experts, by definition, often have many qualifications and experiences and it would be quite cumbersome and, in many cases, uneconomic to check them. However, for larger cases it might be worth confirming key aspects of the expert's CV or asking the expert for proof where possible. Unfortunately this case shows that you cannot rely upon the system's familiarity with an expert (or, for that matter, your own familiarity).
