“The expert had only skimmed the papers.”

“The expert had only skimmed the papers.”

Few expert witnesses would want to read those words in a judgment.

In Re X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness) [2026] EWFC 132, Mrs Justice Knowles decided that the consultant neurosurgeon should be identified following serious criticism of his conduct as an expert witness. That decision followed the court’s detailed findings in Re X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child: Expert Evidence) [2025] EWFC 132.

The criticism went far beyond inadequate preparation.

The court found that the expert had not properly engaged with the available evidence, had strayed beyond the limits of his expertise, had failed to engage adequately with the opinions of other experts, and had advanced conclusions based on speculation rather than a sound evidential foundation.

The case is a reminder that expert evidence is judged not only by the conclusions reached, but by the process used to reach them.

An expert opinion carries weight because it is the product of careful preparation, objective analysis and transparent reasoning.

Before accepting an instruction—or before entering the witness box—it is worth asking:

✔️ Have I fully engaged with all the relevant material?

✔️ Am I remaining firmly within my own expertise?

✔️ Have I fairly considered competing expert opinions?

✔️ Can I clearly explain the evidential basis for every conclusion I have reached?

The role of an expert witness is not to persuade. It is to assist the court with independent, balanced and properly reasoned evidence.

📖 Judgments:

Re X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness) [2026] EWFC 132
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2026/132.html

Re X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child: Expert Evidence) [2025] EWFC 132
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2025/132.html