Judge calls for inquiry into CPS expert witness [ THE JUDGE in a recent murder trial has suggested the CPS
undertake an inquiry after it was found that the prosecution’s expert witness had ‘lost sight of his overriding duty to the court, and failed to comply with the requirements of Crim PD Part 19 and the CPS Guidance to Experts’. Concern had first been raised by the defence team a week before the trial when they asked for the prosecution expert’s evidence to be declared inadmissible. However, the judge did not have to rule on the matter because the prosecution counsel decided not to call the expert in question, a Dr David Ho, as a witness. The judge, Mr Justice Fraser, concluded: “Taken as a whole
8
www.yourexpertwitness.co.uk
and viewed in the round, the situation regarding Dr Ho is of great concern. This was a trial on a murder charge, with a mentally ill defendant. It is important in any case that experts obey the rules that govern the admissibility of expert evidence, but it is particularly important in a case such as this. Whether Dr Ho had potentially lost the necessary degree of independence and objectivity, his awareness of his overriding duty is to the court, and his approach to his task, are in my judgment matters that ought to be investigated by the CPS. “The lack of clear and unambiguous answers by Dr Ho to questions raised by the defence prior to the trial, which the court indicated should be answered and which the prosecution itself accepted should be provided, is another concern. I have not reached final conclusions on any failures by Dr Ho; the application by the defence to exclude his evidence was not argued. It is unlikely, however, that the prosecution decision to abandon him as an expert witness was unconnected with these failings. Regardless of that, there is sufficient prima facie material to raise sufficient concern to justify an inquiry.” Simon Berney-Edwards, chief executive officer of the Expert Witness Institute, commented: “This case is extremely concerning: not just because of the nature of the failings of the prosecution’s expert, but because this is the second time in a few weeks that the Crown Prosecution Service have had to withdraw their expert evidence in a case before trial because of failings of the expert. “We hope that the CPS will undertake the inquiry and that they will consider the actions that should be taken to ensure that they use expert witnesses that are properly trained and have been vetted.” q
