Patrick Hodge, deputy president of the UK Supreme Court and president of the Expert Witness Institute, has warned judges to be cautious when assessing expert witness evidence, emphasising the need for improved scientific and technical literacy. He stressed that the growing complexity of modern legal cases requires judges to critically evaluate whether an expert's experience justifies their opinions.
Lord Hodge highlighted the risk of miscarriages of justice, noting that even impartial experts can make mistakes. He also pointed to the issue of individuals claiming expertise in pseudoscience, which judges must be able to identify and challenge. His comments come amid renewed scrutiny of expert evidence following the Lucy Letby case, where lawyers argue that flawed expert testimony was presented.
Julie Maxton, executive director of the Royal Society, said resources such as seminars and primers on topics like statistics, ballistics, and DNA analysis are increasingly popular among judges. She noted that most law professionals lack scientific backgrounds, making it essential to provide accessible guidance without turning judges into scientists.
Concerns were also raised about expert impartiality, with Lord Hodge warning that some experts may become too eager to please instructing lawyers or develop a 'protect the doctor' mentality. He advocated for accreditation and training bodies to ensure expert witnesses maintain objectivity.
Maxton added that less-tested areas of science, such as gait analysis, pose particular risks, as claims may lack scientific basis. She questioned whether experts should be accredited and how to prevent them from straying beyond key areas of disagreement.
