|
Post by Denise on Dec 13, 2010 16:43:56 GMT
A leapfrog certificate has brought the future for expert witness immunity into the spotlight once more In recent years there has been a succession of cases in which an expert’s immunity from claims for damages has come under the spotlight. An appeal that has jumped up to the Supreme Court brings immunity under the spotlight once again. This first part of a two-part look at expert witness immunity considers the recent history of immunity. The second part (in our next ewire) will consider what might come out of the Supreme Court. To read the full article (part 1) please follow the link www.jspubs.com/Experts/ewire/itemtext.cfm?ewid=199
|
|
|
Post by Denise on Dec 13, 2010 16:45:55 GMT
What would be a 'good' outcome at the Supreme Court? In the first part we looked at the recent background to expert witness immunity and the case of Jones -v- Kaney. Whilst expert witnesses have protection from civil actions for damages, they have always been open to investigation by their professional regulators. In 2006 in Meadow -v- GMC [2006] EWHC Admin 146, Collins J tried to curb what he saw as the ability of professional regulators to outflank witness immunity. It is helpful to understand this case because it has important implications for what might be seen as a ‘good’ outcome from the Supreme Court. Collins J, sitting in the Administrative Court, took pains to set out the long history of the witness immunity rule, which goes back at least as far as R -v- Skinner (1772). It was clear he wished to leave no doubt as to why the rule exists and its fundamental importance in the proper administration of justice. He went on to decide that its reach encompasses all disciplinary proceedings. The often-missed principle underpinning witness immunity is that it exists to protect the public, not the witness. One should not necessarily expect professional regulators to understand this, but it is fundamental to the proper determination of whether any shortcoming in a witness is serious enough to warrant action against that witness. This is why Collins J felt it appropriate for the court to make that judgment. Part 2 of the ewire can be accessed by following the link www.jspubs.com/Experts/ewire/itemtext.cfm?ewid=202
|
|