Expert witness 2017 by Professional Dentistry

FREE DOWLOAD: Worth £85+vat

the

SOLICITORS

group

Quality training for less

EXPERT WITNESS 2017 Conferences / Webinars / CDs / DVDs / E-Publications / InHouse / Consortium

A. Logan Pain Management Ltd. Consultant Pain Management

Dr Andrew St Clair Logan FFMPRCA Expert in assessment of long term pain following injury with regards to causation, prognosis and further treatment. •

Consultations available

Spire Cheshire Hospital (Warrington/Manchester)

Please contact at: Nuffieldhealth The Grosvenor Nuffield Hospital, Wrexham Road Chester CH4 7QP

Email: painconsultant@aol.com

•

Spire Murrayfield Hospital (Wirrral)

•

Chester Wellness Centre

•

Nuffield Health (Chester)

Direct telephone: 07791681278

24 Hour Nationwide Service

Digital Forensics & Cell Site Analysis 

Defence Specialists in Child Pornography, Terrorism and Fraud



Computer Forensics



Cell Site Analysis



SatNav Forensics



Data Recovery &



Mobile Phone Forensics



E-Discovery &

Preservation

E-Disclosure 

Chip-off Forensics



CCTV analysis



Social Media Analysis

0330 660 0052 or 07921 579910 sarah@evidence-matters.com

www.evidence-matters.com

Contents...

Y-STR Profiling in Sexual Assault Cases........................................................... 8

Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 8 Ethical issues.................................................................................................................................. 10 Promega PowerPlex Y23............................................................................................................. 12

Y-STR trial........................................................................................................................................ 14

Guidance on Drugs & Driving - November 2016.................................... 16

Drug driving................................................................................................................................... 16

Guidance only............................................................................................................................. 18

Aggravating and mitigating factors.......................................................................................... 21

Factors that increase seriousness............................................................................................... 22

Aggravating and mitigating factors.......................................................................................... 23

Mitigating factors......................................................................................................................... 23

Analysis of the guidance............................................................................................................. 23 Driving 27 Attempting to drive..................................................................................................................... 27 In charge....................................................................................................................................... 27

Bericon Case Study......................................................................................................... 31

4 How Expert Witnesses & Solicitors Can Help Each Other................34

FREE E-Publications

the

SOLICITORS

group

Get instant access to an omnibus of legal updates, across a range of legal practice areas, free of charge.

Not yet registered or referred by a friend? Sign up today to receive the latest updates.

► Select ‘Publications’ from the top navigation ► Select which publication you want to view ► Enter your name and email address It’s that simple, you will be emailed when further updates are available.

Conferences / Webinars / CDs / DVDs / E-Publications / InHouse / Consortium

London Pain Centre

Consultant in Pain Medicine Clinical Medical Consultant in Pain Management at Guy’s & St Thomas Hospital London, England from 1996 to date. Author editor Pain Clinic Manuals edition 1 and 2 (BMA prize for Ed 2) Author of Intravenous Anaesthesia. Reviewer: EJA, Neuromodulation. Regular teacher/ demonstrator practical procedure courses at GSST & elsewhere. Been on the Television (BBC1): - City hospital demonstration PRF for Cervical DRG’s. Past Treasurer to NSUKI (Neuromodulation Society of UK and Ireland). zICO registered for data protection Regularly appraised and last revalidated for GMC October 2016.

Medico-Legal I initially attended courses run by Professional Solutions, 118 the Strand, Symposia by Lyons Davison, Lynden alexander. I have spent a week undertaking the Mediation course at 118 the Strand, and passed the exam. Lectured to PI lawyers at British library on when to instruct a pain medicine expert, other groups of lawyers on CRPS, Invited speaker Cambridge Medico-legal forum. Given oral evidence in district, county and high courts and have given oral evidence six times in the last three years. Instructed by claimant and defendant with no preference. Very rarely instructed as a single joint expert. Practice mostly personal injury but increasingly I am instructed on negligence cases (most frequently to comment on causation, condition and prognosis with recommendations for treatment – very rarely for liability). I have been preparing medico-legal reports since 1991. I see on average two new claimants a week, which allows time for all the other medico-legal requests such as joint statements, conferences with counsel, answers to part 35 questions, review of surveillance and the preparation of addenda when further documents are made available for review.

CV Download

n.padfield@btconnect.com 020 7349 9717

www.drnicholaspadfield.com 4

Independent Architect with RIBA Chartered Practice status and Member of The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, with extensive Expert Witness experience, both as a Party Expert and as a Single Joint Expert, in the following areas: Architect Professional Negligence and Fee Disputes Architect / Client / Builder Disputes Party Wall Disputes Town Planning Disputes Building Defects arising from New Build, Conversions, Refurbishments, Alterations and Extensions, particularly in the Domestic Sector Proficient in the analysis of evidence and the preparation of Reports. Public Inquiry and High Court experience. Registered with UK Register of Expert Witnesses, Waterlow Legal, X-Pro and Expert Witness.

Mrs Robyn Webber MD FRCSEd(Urol)

Consultant urological surgeon

UK wide coverage

Urology Clinics in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dunfermline

07915 423924

William Bates, BSc (Hons), Dip. Arch., RIBA, ACIArb Oaklands, High Street, Horam, Heathfield, East Sussex TN21 0EJ email enquiries to: will@williambates.co.uk

urology_enquiries@btinternet.com

DMY SURVEYORS

CHARTERED SURVEYORS

Asbestos expert witness and opinion With over 19 years direct asbestos industry experience managing the risk of asbestos in buildings and brown-

We Provide a surveying service to assist Solicitors and their Clients in property related matters.

field sites. Matthew offers expert witness and opinion on all Asbestos regulatory compliance, remediation and management.

•

Remedial disputes & removal standards

•

Survey quality and practice

•

Analytical quality and practice

•

Exposure

•

Compliance

•

Testing

•

Insurance claims

We have been involved in the preparation of Expert Reports for Court for over two decades. In that time we have provided reports on a variety of building defects, contract disputes and boundary disputes, including party wall matters.

Holder of the Cardiff University Law School & Bond Solon

Tel: 01634 26 36 16

(CUBS) civil expert certificate.

Email: mail@propertyconsulting.co.uk

Email: matt@principis.co.uk Tel:07843 598397

4 Bloors Lane, Rainham, Kent ME8 7EG

www.expertasbestos.com 5

MA, FRCPsych., FRCGP Dr Tom Carnwath is a Consultant Psychiatrist, with specialist accreditation in General Adult Psychiatry and Addiction Psychiatry. He has also trained as a GP. He has over twenty years’ experience as an independent expert witness, providing medico-legal reports for claimant and defendant, and frequently as a jointly instructed expert. • • • • • • • • • •

Evans & Co. Ltd. provides professional advice and practical solutions for all your property needs.

Personal injury, Childhood abuse. Criminal compensation. Occupational stress. Cases for Employment Tribunal. Family and Childcare proceedings. Insurance and pension disputes. Mental capacity. Criminal cases, especially involving drugs or alcohol. Psychiatric negligence.

Dr Tom Carnwath PO Box 286 Nantwich CW5 9DN 01270-314066 07734 921614 (secretary) 07713 248018 (Dr. Carnwath) www.tomcarnwath.co.uk

OUR COMPANY STRUCTURE ENSURES YOU HAVE DIRECT PERSONAL CONTACT WITH A DIRECTOR.

He aims to prepare reports within four to six weeks of receiving full instructions and documentation, depending on client availability.

Michael Evans and Co. Aston House Queensway Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire HP1 1LS

CV dr@tomcarnwath.co.uk

CONTACT e: info@mevans1.co.uk t: 01442 261163

www.mevans1.co.uk

Need an Expert in Psychiatry or Psychology? We are a well established company, with a panel of reputable Experts selected for their experience in the field of mental health. Expert in Mind Ltd has a strong working relationship with all panel members, offering a one stop interface between instructing party and Expert. Our experience in this sector, and knowledge of our Experts enables us to advise you on the best Expert for you. We can promptly provide their timescales and fee estimates. Each Expert is assigned a personal assistant meaning that you have one case manager with whom you can discuss any aspect of your case from start to finish. We are not a call centre, nor an agency, we are here to ensure a seamless process in the provision of Expert mental health assessments and there are no hidden extras. Our psychiatrists and psychologists operate in London and the South East, having considerable experience in providing medico-legal reports in a range of areas, including: • • • • • • •

Clinical Negligence Personal Injury Family Law Risk Assessment Employment Tribunals Capacity Assessments Immigration

Tel: 01424 444130 Fax: 01424 234625 General Email: office@expertinmind.co.uk Web: www.expertinmind.co.uk 7

Section 1 Y-STR Profiling in Sexual Assault Cases

Introduction In 1964, a 19-year-old woman was raped and strangled just days after moving into a rented apartment in Boston. Her attacker admitted the crime, as well as killing 10 others, but he later withdrew his confession and was never convicted of her rape and murder. More than 50 years later, cutting edge DNA technology that focuses on the male (Y) chromosome - Y-STR –proved her attacker, the so-called Boston Strangler, was indeed at the crime scene. The very latest advances in DNA technology mean greater scope for prosecuting authorities to collect the evidence needed to convict an offender, and to close cold cases such as the Boston Strangler. It also provides criminal defence lawyers further means to effectively defend a case and potentially prove their client’s innocence. One of the most exciting developments in recent years in the DNA arena is undoubtedly Short Tandem Repeats on the male chromosome: Y-STRs. Uniquely valuable in cases with a sexual offences element, particularly those involving rape and sexual assault, Y-STR can establish whether penetration has occurred – even in the total absence of semen - by focusing on STRs. Essentially, Y-STR profiling provides a further tool to provide scientific evidence to investigate whether or not sexual activity actually occurred – particularly penetration. A male’s individual Y-STR profile is inherited from his father. All male descendants therefore have essentially the same Y-STR profile, and because it runs unchanged through generations it can also provide indications of ethnic/geographic origins. It’s not hard to see how Y-STR profiling can help cases where standard DNA profiling techniques cannot. Traditional, DNA profiling techniques cannot do what Y-STR does: that is, target the DNA present on the male Y chromosome which facilitates the production of a Y-STR profile – even where there is plenty of female DNA present.

Dr Joshua Adedokun FCARCSI, FRCA, FFPMRCA Chronic Pain Expert Personal Injury

Clinical Negligence

Dr Adedokun has extensive clinical experience in the management of various Chronic Pain Syndromes including persistent neck, back, neuropathic or Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) especially following personal and occupational injuries. He also has wide experience in Medical Negligence claims.

We supply a wide range of Psychology services including: Forensic reports for use in the court system including Child Risk and Offender Risk Reports, Pre-sentence Reports, Life Review Panels & Parole Panel Reports

Listed on the UK Register of Expert Witnesses, an APIL expert, Member of Society of Expert Witnesses and Expert Witnesses Institute. Dr Adedokun accepts instructions from Claimants, Defendants and as a Single Joint Expert. He covers Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham and London. Spire Manchester Hospital, 170 Barlow Moor Road Manchester, M20 2AF

Therapy for general Mental Health issues from depression to Sex Offender Treatment to Personality Disorders by experienced Clinical Psychologists Personal Growth issues including Stress Management, Anger Management & Assertiveness Training

M: 0771 196 3200 expertpainreports@gmail.com www.expertpainreports.co.uk

Contracting psychology staff to Local Authorities, the National Health Service & the Prison Service

Visit: midpsych.co.uk Tel: (0121) 224-3051 Email: mps@midpsych.co.uk

MR Kim Hakin FRCS FRCOphth

Mr Kim Hakin is a Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon working in the NHS and in private practice. Available for medico-legal consultations in London and Taunton.

His special interests include the management of cataracts, ocular trauma, eyelid and lacrimal surgery, including cosmetic eyelid surgery, facial aesthetic injection and laser treatments.

Eye-Law Chambers provide Expert Reports for all eye-related mediolegal cases including alleged negligence, personal injury, criminal and employment tribunals.

Mr Hakin prepares approximately 200 reports a year, with a Claimant:Defendant ratio of around 50:50. He is able to provide an appointment for consultation in London or Taunton within 2-3 weeks of request, with a report turnaround time of less than two weeks.

Our Experts have extensive experience. Fast-track services available.

Mr Hakin has an Expert Witness certificate from Cardiff University / Bond Solon Solicitors and he is an expert adviser to Nuffield Hospitals, and formerly to the Healthcare Commission.

Contact: Miss Nadia Bouras Tel: 020 8852 8522 Fax: 020 7515 7861 Email: eyes@dbcg.co.uk Web: www.dbcg.co.uk

Nuffield Health Taunton Hospital Staplegrove Elm Taunton TA2 6AN Phone: 01823 250614 Mobile:07887 651551 kimhakin@aol.com

Prof. Charles ClaouĂŠ

Mr. Louis Clearkin

www.kimhakin.com

Mr. Saj Khan

DBCG Legal Ltd, 36 New Atlas Wharf, Arnhem Place, London E14 3SS

However, according to a forensic scientist specialising in sexual offences, Y-STR “has been around for some time, but the use of this technique in forensic applications is relatively low. The sensitivity of Y-STR typing in a male/female mixed sample is reported to be 1 male cell in 2000 whereas traditional DNA profiling has a 1 in 50 limit for male DNA detection. This makes Y-STR analysis potentially useful in cases where there has been penile or digital penetration but without the deposition of semen, or where the semen is sperm-free”1. Y-STR profiles can be obtained from samples taken up to 48 hours following an alleged incident where penetration took place. This is now reflected in the sampling guidelines at the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians. Y-STR profiling results are not yet searchable against the National DNA Database. However, according to the National DNA Database Ethics Group (‘EG’), the Forensic Science Regulator’s DNA Analysis Specialist Group is developing a standard for DNA profiling using Y-STR analysis. In addition, it is being considered whether a centralised elimination database for Y-STRs should be established for forensic science providers.

Ethical issues There are, however, some ethical concerns in relation both to Y-STR and establishing an elimination database. The EG has advised in favour of the use of Y-STR information in connection with serious crimes without opening the door to routine/ speculative searches of genealogical links between males, but says its governance must be considered. The EG has also raised some of the wider ethical issues, including: •

What is the potential public benefit? For instance, improvement of crime

detection and conviction, esp. in sexual crime

•

What is the potential public harm? Y-STR analysis can provide information

about male infertility (although rare the information might be unknown to the

donor); and use for familial searching

•

What individuals or groups would be most affected?

•

Any threat to human rights or moral entitlements?

•

Is there a risk of error or injustice?

In the context of an elimination database, the EG explained some of the practical ethical issues including: •

Biological relationships: male relatives, such as brothers, can expect to share

almost identical Y-STR profiles and resulting profiles taken from two brothers who worked at the same FSP or police force would very obviously identify if the individuals did not share the same biological father •

Information about male fertility problems: associations have been identified

between certain combinations of missing and/or duplicated Y-STR alleles and male fertility problems. In an otherwise high quality profile, certain combinations of alleles may indicate a deletion of part of the Y chromosome and the possibility that an individual might have fertility problems •

Transgender issues: how to approach Y-STR profiling of transgender individuals

as those individuals who have transitioned to or identify as female, yet genetically have XY chromosomes will need to be included on the Y-STR databases whilst those who have transitioned to or identify as male, yet genetically have XX chromosomes will not need to be included on the Y-STR elimination database2

Promega PowerPlex Y23 Y-STR profiling has been adopted over recent years, and there have been notable improvements in both the quality of Y-STR sampling kits. The well-known Promega PowerPlex® Y23 System, for instance, can successfully amplify trace amounts of male DNA, even in the overwhelming presence of female DNA. So has it withstood scrutiny? Colorado Springs Police Department Metro Crime Laboratory put it to the test (choosing this kit over others because it “exhibited superior discriminating power over the other amplification systems”). The lab found it to be the most discriminating Y-STR kit on the market to date and the results, it said, demonstrated the ability of PowerPlex® Y23 to perform as intended by Promega for use on casework samples. There are other kits on the market including ThermosFisher Scientific F-filer Plus Kit.

Mr Stuart Hislop Consultant Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon MBCHB, BDS, FRCS Ed, FDSRCS Ed, FDRCPS Qualified in dentistry in 1978 and medicine in 1987 Mr. Hislop has a full training in Oral and Maxillofacial surgery. He has experience in all aspects of the specialty but his main interests are head and neck oncology including skin cancer as well as reconstructive surgery. He also has an interest in facial trauma both hard and soft tissue.

• • • • •

20 years experience. Works in Ayrshire and Glasgow Experienced medico legal expert Also carries out routine oral surgery Will work for both plaintiff and defendant

Tel: 01563 827488

Email: Stuart.Hislop@aaaht.scot.nhs.uk 13

Y-STR trial The Metropolitan Police has carried out a 6-month Y-STR pilot and is due to give its evaluation of the pilot to the EG. No details of the trial appear to be available, but when its evaluation is provided, forensic providers and experts will undoubtedly find its observations useful. What’s clear is that Y-STR profiling is playing an increasingly vital component in eliminating suspects, and providing unequivocal, convincing evidence in serious sexual offences cases.

1. http://www.forensiccontext.com/demonstrating-that-penetration-has-occurredwhen-no-semen-is-found-the-whys-and-wherefores-of-y-strs/

2. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/543118/NDNAD_Ethics_Group_meeting_minutes_7_June_2016.pdf

3. Study by Marshall University, Huntingdon, WV USA focusing on the validation of the PowerPlex®

Colin Featherstone Accredited Expert Witness

Y23 System for use in the Colorado Springs Police Department Metro Crime Laboratory (Colorado Springs,

BSc (Hons) Dip Arb FRICS FCIArb MAE QDR (ED)

CO) following the SWGDAM and

Colin has prepared Expert Reports on a diverse range of matters -

FBI validation guidelines for forensic laboratories. Summer 2015

Including quantum, certification, restitution & rebuild costs, abatement of defects, damages, loss of earnings & forensic delay analysis in both Civil and Criminal Court proceedings & in alternative dispute resolution tribunals. He has acted in the role of Single Joint Expert, Expert Assessor & Party Appointed Expert.

t: 01803 690275 m: 07974 380515

• Adjudicator • Arbitrator • Claims • Cost Management • Delay Analysis • Dispute Resolution • Expert Determination • Expert Reports • Final Accounts • Project Management • Quantity Surveying • Quantum Reports

e: info@cf-associates.co.uk w: www.cf-associates.co.uk

UK, Europe, UAE, Qatar, Middle East

Do you have a timber problem? Then you need a wood expert from

WOODEXPERTS TECHNICAL AND TRAINING SOLUTIONS FOR THE TIMBER & CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES

Established in 1991, TFT Woodexperts are all you need when it comes to ﬁnding an independent expert in Timber and Wood-based materials.

INDEPENDENT HEALTH CONSULTANT AND EXPERT WITNESS

Our consultants are highly experienced in all aspects of problem investigation, report preparation and Expert Witness work (including legal aid) and we comply with Civil Procedure Rules in respect of Single Joint Expert instructions. TFT Woodexperts provide the following services to members of the legal profession, and to Trading Standards officers in case of dispute or poor quality: • Site Investigations • Desktop Review of Documents

07767 611608

• Specialist Reports • Species Identification • Structural Surveys

roger.james4@hotmail.co.uk

TFT WOODEXPERTS LIMITED

Park House · Barker Business Park · Melmerby Green Road Melmerby, nr Ripon · HG4 5NB · United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)1765 601010 · Fax: +44 (0)1765 info@woodexperts.com · www.woodexperts.com

Mr R Scott-Watson BSc MB BS LLB CUEW DDAM FRCS(Ed)

RSW Medico-Legal Ltd Expert Witness in OrthopaedicTrauma Over 21,000 reports since 1990. APIL Expert. MEOL Approved Expert Fully trained in CPR; Court appearances 2 per year . Low Velocity RTA cases accepted MedCo Accredited. DME 4726 Secretary : Mrs Carol Couzens Main Office : 7A Heath Lane, Oldswinford, Stroubridge, West Midlands DY8 1RF Contact: Tel/ Fax 01384 441126 Email: CarolCouzens@ymail.com Clinics: Stourbridge, Birmingham, Coventry, Bristol, Swindon, Oxford. Urgent reports, Home and Prison Visits Winner: Lawyer Monthly Orthopaedic Expert 2016; Forensic Insider Orthopaedic Award 2016;Forensic and Expert Witness E Magazine Medico Legal Awards 2014/2015 and 2016/2017.

Section 2 Guidance on Drugs & Driving November 2016

The Sentencing Council – ‘guidance’ issued this week (21st of November 2016) on driving, attempting to drive or being in charge with drugs in the system above the permissible levels This is such an important document that I feel it warrants reproduction (in large measure) and an analysis of some of the important points within it. It will be highly relevant to criminal practitioners on an almost daily/weekly basis and a ‘must read’ for anyone acting as Court Duty Solicitor. Although not said, I suspect it will be applied to anyone being sentenced as from its publication, regardless of the offence or conviction date. Although it does not have the status of formal Guidance issued by The Sentencing Council it will still become a highly relevant document in the Magistrates’ Court. Near the conclusion I give examples of 7 different defendants looking at 7 different sentences arising from the ‘guidance’. The first page of the new ‘guidance’ reads as follows:

Drug driving Introduction Since the new offence came into force in March 2015 the Sentencing Council has received a large number of requests for a sentencing guideline. It has been brought to our attention that there are concerns with sentencing in this area and a risk of inconsistent practices developing. The new offence is a strict liability offence, which is committed once the specified limit for any of 17 specified controlled drugs is exceeded. The 17 drugs include both illegal drugs and drugs that may be medically prescribed. The limits for illegal drugs are set in line with a zero tolerance approach but ruling out accidental exposure. The limits for drugs that may be medically prescribed are set in line with a road safety risk-based approach, at levels above the normal

GMR AVIATION UK.qxd:TC9990701-LAYOUT-MQ2.qxd

16/9/13

14:35

the perfect approach to aviation expert services

Page 1

• Aviation Expert Reports provided by Fixed Wing and Rotary Pilots. • Other Expert disciplines include Air Traffic Control, Engineering and Maintenance, Flight Instruction, Meteorology and Airline Cabin Safety. • Experienced in high value and complex litigation involving Commercial, Private, Military and Airshow flying incidents. • Instructed by both Claimant and Defendant solicitors to prepare detailed reports meeting specific deadlines. • Established UK and International reputation and APIL Experts.

GMR Consulting, 33 St. Jamesʼs Square, London, SW1Y 4JS Tel: +44 (0)207 129 1416 Other offices in the UK and USA

www.gmrconsulting.com

Mr. Rotimi A K Jaiyesimi MBBS, FFSRH, FRSPH, FWACS, FRCOG, MBA, LL.M

Associate Medical Director for Patient Safety & Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist T: 07748 645 864 E: jaiyesimi@obs-gyn.org 17

concentrations found with therapeutic use. This is different from the approach taken when setting the limit for alcohol, where the limit was set at a level where the effect of the alcohol would be expected to have impaired a person’s driving ability. For these reasons it would be wrong to rely on the Driving with Excess Alcohol guideline when sentencing an offender under this legislation.

Guidance only At present there is insufficient reliable data available from the Department for Transport upon which the Sentencing Council can devise a full guideline. For that reason, and given the number of requests for guidance that have been received, the Sentencing Council has devised the attached ‘guidance’ to assist sentencers. It is important to note that this guidance does not carry the same authority as a Sentencing Guideline, and sentencers are not obliged to follow it. However, it is hoped that the majority of sentencers will find it useful in assisting them to deal with these cases. The Sentencing Council will, in due course produce a guideline with the assistance of evidence and data gathered by the Department for Transport. Any new guideline will be made subject to public consultation before it is finalised. We all know that the new offence came into force on the 2nd March 2015. A new Section 5A was inserted into the Road Traffic Act 1988 as a result of the implementation of Section 56 (1) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The new offence is as follows: Section 5A (1) and (2) makes it an offence for a person to drive, attempt to drive, or be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with a specified controlled drug in the body, if the proportion of the drug in that person’s blood or urine exceeds the specified limit for that drug. Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 2868 – The Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014 which came into force on the 2nd March 2015 gave us the details of 16 controlled drugs and the limit permissible expressed in terms of micrograms per litre of blood. 2 mcg/L of blood of cannabis, 10 mcg/L of blood of cocaine etc

I have been a full-time NHS Consultant Cardiologist at Solihull Hospital (Heart of England NHS trust) since 2010. I am on the Specialist Register for Cardiology & General Internal Medicine. Expertise includes complications from cardiac procedures, atrial fibrillation, syncope, cardiac arrest and other arrhythmias, chest pain and myocardial infarction, cardiac risk assessment, heart failure and cardiomyopathy, hypertension, stroke, pulmonary embolism, cardiac trauma and insurance claims, thrombosis and anticoagulation. I provide expert reports in a wide range of cases with an emphasis on clinical negligence, personal injury, causation, condition and prognosis.

khalidmahmood99@hotmail.com

Dr Khalid Mahmood.

MBChB, MRCP (UK) Consultant Cardiologist & General Physician

07795460224

The drug they were obviously not sure about was amphetamine and so we were given Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 911 – The Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 which came into force on the 14th April 2015 and set the permissible limit for amphetamine at 250 mcg/L of blood The ‘guidance’ goes on as follows: Driving or attempting to drive Triable only summarily: Maximum: Unlimited fine and/or 6 months. Must endorse and disqualify for at least 12 months. Must disqualify for at least 2 years if an offender has had 2 or more disqualifications for periods of 56 days or more in preceding 3 years – refer to disqualification guidance and consult your legal adviser for further guidance (I shall analyse the meaning of this later – I wonder if the guidance is correct in this regard?) Must disqualify for at least 3 years if the offender has been convicted of a relevant offence in preceding 10 years – consult your legal adviser for further guidance. If there is a delay in sentencing after conviction, consider interim disqualification. As a guide, where an offence of driving or attempting to drive has been committed and there are no factors that increase seriousness the Court should consider a starting point of a Band C fine, and a disqualification in the region of 12 – 22 months. The list of factors that increase seriousness appears in this guidance. Please note that this is an exhaustive list and only factors that appear in the list should be considered. Where there are factors that increase seriousness the court should consider increasing the sentence on the basis of the level of seriousness. The Community Order threshold is likely to be crossed where there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness. The court should also consider imposing a disqualification in the region of 23 – 28 months.

The Custody threshold is likely to be crossed where there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness AND one or more aggravating factors. The court should also consider imposing a disqualification in the region of 29 – 36 months. Having determined a starting point, the court should consider additional factors that may make the offence more or less serious. A non-exhaustive list of aggravating and mitigating factors is set out in the guidance.

Factors that increase seriousness (this is an exhaustive list) Evidence of another specified drug or of alcohol in the body Evidence of an unacceptable standard of driving Driving (or in charge of) an LGV, HGV or PSV Driving (or in charge of) a vehicle driven for hire or reward

Aggravating and mitigating factors (these are non-exhaustive lists) Aggravating factors Previous convictions having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction. • Location e.g. near school • Carrying passengers • High level of traffic or pedestrians in the vicinity • Poor road or weather conditions Mitigating factors • No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions • Remorse • Good character and/or exemplary conduct • Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender • Mental disorder or learning disability • Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives • Very short distance driven • Genuine emergency established

In charge • Triable only summarily: • Maximum: level 4 fine and/or 3 months • Must endorse and may disqualify. If no disqualification, impose 10 points As a guide, where an offence of being in charge has been committed but there are no factors that increase seriousness the court should consider a starting point of a Band B fine, and endorsing the licence with 10 penalty points. The list of factors that increase seriousness appears in this guidance. Please note this is an exhaustive list and only factors that appear in the list should be considered. Where there are factors that increase seriousness the court should consider increasing the sentence on the basis of the level of seriousness. The Community Order threshold is likely to be crossed where there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness and one or more aggravating factors (see later in the guidance). The court should also consider imposing a disqualification. Where there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness and a greater number of aggravating factors (see later in the guidance) the court may consider it appropriate to impose a short custodial sentence of up to 12 weeks. The court should also consider imposing a disqualification. Having determined a starting point, the court should consider additional factors that may make the offence more or less serious. A non-exhaustive list of aggravating and mitigating factors is set out in this guidance.

Factors that increase seriousness – (this is an exhaustive list) • Evidence of another specified drug or alcohol in the body • Evidence of an unacceptable standard of driving • Driving (or in charge of) an LGV, HGV or PSV • Driving (or in charge of) a vehicle driven for hire or reward

Mitigating factors • No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions • Remorse • Good character and/or exemplary conduct • Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender • Mental disorder or learning disability • Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives • Very short distance driven • Genuine emergency established

Analysis of the guidance The first thing that strikes one upon reading the ‘guidance’ is that the level of drugs within the system does not even get a mention. Is the defendant with 2 µg of cannabis per litre of blood in his system more culpable, and therefore deserving of a harsher punishment, than the defendant with 26 µg of cannabis per litre of blood in his system? I may be wrong but it seems to me that the Sentencing Council were probably wary of being too specific/definitive in relation to culpability arising from the level of drugs until further research has been done establishing with a greater degree of certainty the differing effects, in terms of impairment or otherwise, of the differing drug levels.

Be careful in relation to ‘evidence of another specified drug or alcohol in the body’ as a factor increasing seriousness – the ‘guidance’ says the following: For these purposes, cocaine and benzoylecgonine (BZE) shall be treated as one drug as they both occur in the body as a result of cocaine use rather than polydrug use. Similarly 6-Monoacteylmorphine and Morphine shall be treated as one drug as they both occur in the body as a result of heroin use. Finally, Diazepam and Temazepam shall be treated as one drug as they both occur in the body as a result of Temazepam use. Let’s imagine that you are the Court Duty Solicitor dealing with the road traffic list. Defendant No. 1 appears before the Court and pleads guilty to a drug offence (driving or attempting to drive) – there are no factors that increase seriousness – the starting point is a Band C fine i.e. 150% of relevant weekly income with a range of between 125% and 175% – in addition a disqualification in the region of 12 – 22 months (query – would it be permissible for the Magistrates’/District Judge to take into account the reading in deciding the appropriate length of the disqualification? – Would it be permissible for the Magistrates’/District Judge to take into account the reading in deciding where the offence fell within the range? – are these decisions i.e. ‘range’ and ‘period of disqualification’ only to be decided, dependent upon aggravating and mitigating factors? (My view, for what it’s worth, is that the latter proposition is correct in that the reading ought not to be taken into consideration in deciding issues such as ‘range’ and ‘period of disqualification’). Defendant No. 2 appears before the Court and pleads guilty to a drug offence (in charge) – there are no factors that increase seriousness – the starting point is a Band B fine i.e. 100% of relevant weekly income with a range of between 75% and 125% – in addition 10 penalty points (query – the same questions as posed above). NB – remember that there are only 4 factors that increase seriousness and that the list is a definitive one! 1 – Evidence of another specified drug or alcohol in the body 2 – Evidence of an unacceptable standard of driving 3 – Driving (or in charge of) an LGV, HGV or PSV 4 – Driving (or in charge of) a vehicle driven for hire or reward

Defendant No. 3 appears before the Court and pleads guilty to a drugs offence (driving or attempting to drive) – the only factor that increases seriousness is that there is evidence of another specified drug or of alcohol in the body – such a defendant might be at risk of a Community Order and a disqualification in the region of 23 – 28 months. Still dealing with defendant No. 3, exactly the same would apply if the only factor that increased the seriousness was 2, 3 or 4 in the above list. Defendant No. 4 appears before the Court and pleads guilty to a drugs offence (driving or attempting to drive) – this defendant has more than one factor increasing seriousness – it would appear from the ‘guidance’ that he is still only at risk of a Community Order Defendant No. 5 appears before the Court and pleads guilty to a drugs offence (driving or attempting to drive) – this defendant has one or more than one factor that increases seriousness (let’s say, evidence of an unacceptable standard of driving) and IN ADDITION he has one or more than one of the aggravating factors (let’s say, he was near a school, or carrying passengers, or there was a high level of traffic or pedestrians in the vicinity or the road or weather conditions were poor – these are just examples of a non-exhaustive list of aggravating factors) – this defendant is likely to have crossed the Custody threshold – the court should also consider imposing a disqualification in the region of 29 – 36 months Defendant No. 6 appears before the Court and pleads guilty to a drugs offence (in charge) – there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness and one or more aggravating factors – in these circumstances the Community Order threshold is likely to be crossed – the Court should also consider imposing a disqualification – this, of course, will be a discretionary disqualification under Section 34 (2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in lieu of the 10 penalty points – it is one or the other – there can never be a discretionary disqualification and penalty points for the same offence – R v Martin – it is a discretionary disqualification and the minimum period is one day and the maximum period is, presumably, life – I only say this to indicate that Parliament hasn’t set any mandatory minimum period – the period is entirely at the Court’s discretion. NB – where the offence is ‘in charge’ as opposed to ‘driving or attempting to drive’ you will have noticed that in order for the Community Order threshold to be crossed there must be evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness AND one or more aggravating factors. 25

This is not the case where the offence is ‘driving or attempting to drive’ where the Community Order threshold is likely to be crossed where there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness – no mention here of one or more aggravating factors. This seems entirely logical to me as the offence of being ‘in charge’ is regarded as a lesser offence than ‘driving or attempting to drive’– the offence of ‘in charge’ being punishable by a level 4 fine and/or 3 months imprisonment and 10 penalty points rather than an unlimited fine and/or 6 months imprisonment and a mandatory minimum period of disqualification (absent special reasons) of 12 months which is applicable in relation to ‘driving or attempting to drive’ Where the Community Order threshold has been crossed in relation to an ‘in charge’ offence than the court should also consider a discretionary disqualification as opposed to 10 penalty points. Defendant No. 7 appears before the Court and pleads guilty to a drugs offence (in charge) and there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness and a greater number of aggravating factors – in these circumstances the Court may consider that the Custody threshold has been crossed and that a short custodial sentence of up to 12 weeks might be appropriate – the Court should also consider imposing a disqualification Defendant No. 7 is problematic and the ‘guidance’ could be clearer – apparently, the Community Order threshold is likely to be crossed where there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness and one or more aggravating factors – the Custody threshold is likely to be crossed where there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness and a greater number of aggravating factors – what is meant by ‘a greater number of aggravating factors?’ – how are those words to be differentiated from the words ‘one or more aggravating factors?’– it would have been far simpler to say that the Community Order threshold is likely to be crossed where there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness and one aggravating factor whilst the Custody threshold is likely to be crossed where there is evidence of one or more factors that increase seriousness and more than one aggravating factor – there will be arguments in Court as to whether or not the Community Order threshold or the Custody threshold has been passed.

Driving A person can be said to be ‘driving’ where they have substantial control over both the movement and the direction of a vehicle

Attempting to drive A person can be said to be ‘attempting to drive’ where they have done an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the full offence – we know from case-law that the mere opening of a car door is not sufficiently preparatory to be regarded as an attempt – Mason and the DPP [2009] EWHC 2198 (Admin) (it seems to me that there must be something more e.g. putting the keys into the ignition barrel or activating the start of the vehicle in some way – the words in brackets are my comments and not part of the judgement)

In charge There is no hard and fast all embracing test as to the meaning of ‘in charge’. If the defendant is the owner or lawful possessor of the vehicle or has recently driven it, he is prima facie ‘in charge’ unless he has put the vehicle in someone else’s charge; if he is not the owner, lawful possessor or recent driver, but is sitting in the vehicle or is otherwise involved with it, the question is whether he has assumed being ‘in charge’ of it. The following circumstances will be relevant: 1 – Whether and where he is in the vehicle or how far he is from it; 2 – What he is doing at the relevant time; 3 – Whether he is in possession of a key that fits the ignition; 4 – Whether there is evidence of an intention to take or assert control of the car by

driving or otherwise;

5 – Whether any other person is in, at, or near the vehicle and if so the like particulars

in respect of that person.

It will be for the court to consider all of the above factors with any others which may be relevant and reach its decision as a question of fact and degree (DPP v Watkins [1989] QB 821, [1989] 1 ALL ER 1126)

Let us now return to the part of the ‘guidance’ which reads ‘Must disqualify for at least 2 years if an offender has had 2 or more disqualifications for periods of 56 days or more in preceding 3 years’ and see where the statutory basis for this contention comes from. I might add, in passing, that exactly the same words appear in the Magistrates’ Court Guidelines concerning alcohol and driving offences, and always have done. The statutory basis for the above is Section 34 (4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which reads as follows: Subject to subsection (3) above, (and this, as you know, is the subsection that states that the ban is 3 years rather than 12 months if the offender has been convicted of a relevant offence in the preceding 10 years), subsection (1) above shall apply as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 2 years – (a) In relation to a person convicted of – (i) Manslaughter, or in Scotland culpable homicide, or (ii) An offence under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving), or (iia) An offence under Section 1A of that Act (causing serious injury by dangerous driving), or (iii) An offence under section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs), and (b) In relation to a person on whom more than one disqualification for a fixed period of 56 days or more has been imposed within the 3 years immediately preceding the commission of the offence. Q – Does an offender only fall within the potential 2-year ban if he or she meets the criteria in both (a) and (b)? – In my view the answer is ‘NO’ – I can see nothing in the wording of the above which requires the offender to fall into both categories – the wording suggests to me that (a) and (b) are entirely separate and distinct from one another and falling into either category would do

Q – If I am right in my answer to the first question, then why does the ‘guidance’ only refer to Part (b) rather than Parts (a) and (b) – an offender may well fall within (a) because of a previous conviction either acquired at the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court within the requisite period – I say Magistrates’ Court or Crown Court because the offence of ‘causing serious injury by dangerous driving is triable either way – the others being clearly indictable only. Q – If I am right in my answer to the first question, then why does it never happen in practice? – When was the last time you saw a defendant disqualified for 2 years or more on their first drink drive conviction because they fell within (a) or (b)? – I have never seen it happen and yet, apparently, it’s been in the legislation since 1988! If you read the relevant passage in Wilkinson on Road Traffic, whilst it could be clearer, it does seem to support my contention that falling within either (a) or (b) will suffice We know where it does happen in practice and the scenario is as follows: A defendant appears in court and ‘tots’ i.e. accumulates 12 or more penalty points and thus falls within Section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The disqualification within Section 35 (1) is referred to as ‘the minimum period’ Section 35 (2) reads as follows: The minimum period referred to in subsection (1) above is – (a) 6 months if no previous disqualification imposed on an offender is to be taken into account, and (b) one year if one, and two years if more than one, such disqualification is to be taken into account; And a previous disqualification imposed on an offender is to be taken into account if it was for a fixed period of 56 days or more and was imposed within the three years immediately preceding the commission of the latest offence in respect of which penalty points are taking into account under Section 29 of this Act. WE HAVE ALL HAD EXPERIENCE OF SUCH DEFENDANTS!

E ER H RE K O IC M C L OR F

nsics

Alcohol Back Calculations And Laced Drink Defences

Forensics Forensics

Mobile Phones Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Document Alterations

Your Forensic One-Stop One-Stop Shop Shop Your Forensic

DNA Drugs Including Analysis, Packaging And Valuations

8,500 drivers were convicted of drug driving in 2016, the first full year since the Glass legislation changed in March 2015. In 2014, only 879 drivers were convicted Handwriting Paint Bericon can provide expert advice in drug driving cases including where an individual: Cell Site Analysis

, Bericon is one of the UK’s leading forensic science and has become an invaluable resource and legal profession. Bericon is committed to working to speed up the process of forensic review and de you with:

Is facing an “In Charge” prosecution. (similar to drink drive cases where the individual eview of forensic evidence wouldn’t have driven until under the limit). ction of quotes

report compilation within 5 days of laboratory ction

May have taken drugs after they’ve driven. (similar to post driving consumption drink drive cases).

formative and concise technical commentary

May have taken a drug unknowingly. (similar to laced or spiked drink drive cases).

Take a look at our new video

GET IN TOUCH Your Forensic One-Stop Shop

Head Office London Office Freephone

01782 394929 0207 118 9001 0800 999 7 666

Bericon Forensics Unit 29,Blythe Park Cresswell Stoke-on-Trent ST11 9RD

Your Forensic One-Stop Shop

orensic capability

Driving under the influence of drugs, either illicit or prescription, has been an offence for many years but before March 2015, the Crown had to establish that the individual was impaired to drive. Historically about 40% of proceedings in Magistrates Courts for drug driving were withdrawn or dismissed. The comparable figure for drink driving was 3%. However, given that one in ten 17-24 year olds have taken drugs before driving and nearly 25% of fatal road accidents showed drugs were a key factor, the Government decided to impose statutory limits for certain substances and consequently the police no longer need to prove impairment for this new offence. The change in law works alongside the old legislation but makes it an offence to drive while over a specified limit for each of the 16 drugs listed. This makes the offence similar to that for driving with excess alcohol, given that statutory limits now exist. From a scientific perspective, the cases undertaken by Bericon Forensics show an emerging pattern, one very similar to the types of cases which we have undertaken in drink driving for the last 30 years. More specifically, we have prepared reports in the following cases, all of which show comparability to drink drive prosecutions: Case Study 1: “In Charge” prosecutions: similar to drink drive cases where the individual wouldn’t have driven until under the legal limit. The defendant was in the driver’s seat of the vehicle and officers noted the smell of cannabis emanating from within the car. He gave a positive roadside test for the presence of cannabis and a sample of the defendant’s blood was taken for analysis. This sample was subsequently shown to contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at a concentration of 3 microgrammes per litre (3.2ug/l). This THC concentration is above the statutory limit of 2ug/l but given that defendant was not seen to be driving the vehicle he was charged with being in charge of a vehicle. Bericon was requested to prepare a report that assessed the significance of THC being found in defendant’s blood and, most significantly, if his reading would have fallen below the statutory limit when he intended to drive. Our report suggested that it was most probable that his reading would have been below 2ug/l when he would have returned to drive his vehicle and the defendant was acquitted. Case Study 2: Post-incident or post-driving consumption of drugs: similar to cases where individual has consumed alcohol after having driven. The defendant was spoken to by police officers and took a roadside drug test which indicated the presence of cannabis. He was arrested and taken to the police station.

A blood sample was taken from him and subsequent analysis of which showed there to be THC present at a concentration of not less than 3.3ug/l, which exceeds the statutory limit of 2ug/l. We were instructed that the defendant consumed about one gramme of cannabis immediately after he was stopped and prior to him speaking to police officers. Bericon was requested to prepare a report that assessed whether the cannabis compounds could be present as a consequence of the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consumption of cannabis in the manner suggested. Our findings were on the assumption that the defendant consumed the amount of cannabis at the time suggested that this could have given rise to the reported blood THC reading or at least have significantly contributed to it to a level that without it, his reading would have been below the statutory limit. The defendant was acquitted. Case Study 3: Unknowing consumption of drugs: similar to cases where the individual has consumed alcohol unknowingly Police officers spoke to the driver of a motor vehicle and requested he took a roadside drug test. The test indicated the presence of cannabis and the Defendant was arrested and taken to the police station. A blood sample was taken from him and subsequent analysis of which showed there to be THC present at a concentration of not less than 7ug/, which exceeds the statutory limit of 2ug/l. We were instructed that the defendant consumed a cake which reportedly contained a quantity of cannabis. He reported that the whole cake consumed 6.5 grammes of cannabis and which was divided into six portions, three of which were consumed by him. Bericon was requested to prepare a report that assessed whether the cannabis compound could be present as a consequence of the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unwitting consumption of it in the cake. Our findings were that on the assumption that the cake contained the quantity of cannabis that was suggested and that the defendant consumed it in the amounts and at the times suggested that this could have given rise to the reported blood THC reading or at least have significantly contributed to it and therefore without this consumption his reading could have been below the limit. The defendant was acquitted. All the above cases have been undertaken by Bericon Forensics in the last 12 months and show that in some situations, consideration should be given to a whole range of factors about drug use and drug driving prosecutions. Alan Baker Bericon Forensics T: 01782 394929 F: 01782 394931 M: 07834 838776 E: enquiries@bericon.co.uk W: www.bericon.co.uk Offices in London and Stoke-on-Trent

Dr Anba Soopramanien Consultant in Spinal Injuries & Rehabilitation Medicine MD, Phd, FRCP I feel fortunate to have worked as a Consultant in Spinal Injuries & Rehabilitation Medicine since 1982 as this is an area of great interest to me.

International

I have had the opportunity to work on international rehabilitation projects in Pakistan and Romania. More recently I am involved in Mauritius with the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life to improve the provision of neurological rehabilitation.

Publications

I have written scientific papers and contributed to chapters in books on the subjects of neurological rehabilitation and on tele-medicine.

Medico Legal Work

My extensive clinical experience has enabled me to prepare medico-legal reports in over 2000 cases over the last ten years.

Tele-Medicine

I am committed to the use of technology in order to inform, educate and improve healthcare conditions for patients. I continue to explore the opportunities of telemedicine, as well as ways in which it can become a reality for the NHS and in Mauritius.

A film about Telerehabilitation A short documentary that looks at the use of technology in rehabilitation and how it can improve healthcare. The film consists of a series of interviews with users of telehealth systems and looks at their needs and what needs to be included in future technology.

t: m: w: e:

0208 416 3927 07753 846383 www.anbasoopramanien.com anba.soopramanien@btinternet.com33

Postal Address: 13 Goodhall Close, Stanmore, HA7 4FR

Section 3 How Expert Witnesses and Solicitors Can Help Each Other

Expert witnesses play a crucial role in litigation. A case can turn on the evidence of an expert in any given case. The strength of an expert witness and their evidence can also be a deciding factor in whether, and how a case can be settled - meaning the costs involved in on-going litigation can be reduced or even avoided. Experts are sometimes commissioned to give an expert evaluation of a case to enable the solicitor to decide if a claim is worth pursuing. In other cases, an expert witness will be instructed by the claimant’s or defendant’s solicitor to support the claim or defence. In some cases, a joint expert will be instructed by both parties, representing a substantial costs saving for both sides of the dispute. The relationship between expert witnesses and their instructing solicitors is therefore vital. So what is the role of an expert witness, and how can solicitors and expert witnesses be a mutual help to each other? As an expert witness, your role is to provide an independent, true, accurate, thorough assessment of the issues. For example, the claimant’s physical and or mental injuries and prognosis in a personal injury claim; an engineer’s report on a potentially defect mechanical system; or a handwriting analysis in a claim involving a fraudulent document. Lawyers will be seeking experts who are specialist in a particular field – sometimes in a particularly niche area in any given field. A general cancer specialist, for instance, may not be as qualified to provide expert evidence where a claimant has a rare form of ovarian cancer: a specialist in ovarian cancer would be more appropriate. Or in a construction case involving an ancient building, a specialist surveyor experienced in Grade 1 listed buildings would be preferable to an expert chartered building surveyor.

Experts can therefore help lawyers by being upfront about the extent of, and limits to, their professional expertise in any given case. For their part, instructing lawyers will need to be clear as to what is required so that the right expert can be found and commissioned. A good relationship between expert witness and lawyer makes dealing with potential conflicts easier to deal with. Once a conflict or potential conflict, or connection, has been identified, the nature and extent of a such a conflict needs to be established as quickly as possible. This may need to be disclosed to the other side, and the expert witness may need to cease proceeding. The instructing solicitors can help the expert in dealing with issues of conflict effectively for the protection of all parties concerned. Where an expert report is required for the purposes of litigation, the overarching role of the expert is to help the court reach its final decision. The expert witness effectively provides the judge with the evidence, including an expert analysis of matters that are not within the judgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own expertise and knowledge. Expert witnesses are under a duty to comment only on matters within their expertise. It is vitally important that the scope of the report required is clearly defined between expert and solicitor so that the expert has absolute clarity as to what is required. A clear foundation for what is required means both solicitor and expert can comfortably communicate and discuss matters during the litigation. The instructing solicitor must be able to clearly identify the issues on which an expertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinion is required. For instance, the nature of an injury may not be in doubt, and liability may not be in issue, but the extent of the injury, and how long it may take for the claimant to recover could be the two issues of contention. If this is made clear to the medical expert who is commissioned, their remit will be clear; and when their report is received â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the solicitor will have a report that focuses on the matters that are at issue. This will make the entire process less time consuming, and more cost effective. The duties of an expert witness are set out in Civil Procedure Rules, Part 35, and instructing lawyers should explain these duties to their experts. Part 35 (and its associated Practice Direction) clearly states the need to consider all material facts, and also to comment where there is a range of opinion. Experts should not be hesitant to ask the solicitor to explain these duties to them, and to request any further information that will help them discharge their legal responsibilities.

HUNGARIAN TRANSLATION & RESEARCH

Psychological Assessment

ABOUT

Personal Injury

Having worked as a registered legal interpreter for more than nine years I have completed over 2,000 hours of court, tribunal and police interpreting assignments.

Clinical Negligence Psychological Therapy PTSD

My PHD was finished at UCL in 2006 after which I studied English law part-time at the university of Westminster and at BPP until 2012.

Chronic Pain CRPS

I can be found on the National Register, in the APCI directory, and as a member of the CIoL.

Psychological Training: Psychology for Solicitors

If you require my services please contact me (details below) for a price estimate.

SERVICES

Legal and financial translating. (Property sale contracts, financial checks and immigration documents). Interpreting: face to face, via skype and though the telephone. Proofreading. Tuition

DR. ANDREA DENBY 0121 241 9092 info@educarepartners.com www.educarepartners.com/ml

EMAIL: adenby@hotmail.com PHONE: 01284 756092 37

As an expert witness, you may be required to give oral evidence in court. It is understandable that you will need advice on how to address the court, and how to deal with cross examination in court â&#x20AC;&#x201C; particularly if you are inexperienced. The professionally-minded instructing solicitor (and counsel if involved in the case) will guide you through what you can expect, so that you can give your evidence with confidence and discharge your duty to the court. The relationship between an expert witness is potentially lengthy, particularly in the case of long-running litigation. Even in the case of disputes that are settled relatively quickly, expert witnesses will be seeking to build their reputation and look for further opportunities to provide their expertise as an expert witness. Compatibility and mutual trust is therefore vital. Experts need to understand precisely what lawyers are looking for in any given expert report and be able to nail the issues clearly and succinctly in a way that the client, and the judge (and sometimes a jury) will be able to understand. If the case reaches a final hearing, the expert will want to be trusted and relied upon for the expert evidence he or she has provided. An expertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s report can make or break a claim, whether in the early stages of a claim or at a final court hearing. A good working relationship between expert and solicitor is undoubtedly at the heart of producing a robust and effective report that is fit for purpose.

TALBOTCLINIC

HANDLING A NEGLIGENCE CASE? Dental consultant and expert witness Toby Talbot has spent 20 years providing a fast track service for the legal community in cases of clinical negligence. Toby assists courts, counsel and judges in making accurate and well-informed decisions in cases relating to restorative dentistry and all aspects of prosthodontics, periodontics, endodontics and implantology. Causation, liability, prognosis and quantum are included, often rendering court hearings unnecessary. Consultation will be provided within a few days of written instruction and complete reports can be provided within 10 days. Whether acting for the claimant or defendant, please call.

01225 426 222

toby@talbotclinic.co.uk 38

talbotclinic.co.uk

Dr Linda Monaci Consultant Clinical Neuropsychologist Medico-legal assessments for suspected or known brain injury and/or brain dysfunction in Personal Injury and Medical Negligence claims

• Acquired brain injury

• Post-concussion syndrome

• Stroke

• Anoxia

• Epilepsy

• Dementia

• Alcohol and drug abuse

• Neuropsychiatric conditions

• Mental capacity & fitness to plead assessments Instructions from Claimants, Defendants and as a Single Joint Expert. Appointments within 2 to 4 weeks, and reports produced in a further 2 to 4 weeks. Assessments can be carried out in Italian. Dr Monaci also has a good knowledge of the Swedish language and has experience of working through interpreters. Dr Monaci has completed the Cardiff University Bond Solon Expert Witness Certificates (Civil and Criminal Law). Contact: linda@monaciconsultancy.com for an initial enquiry. Main consulting rooms (nationwide locations): Several locations in the UK are available. Domiciliary visits can be arranged when clinically appropriate Ten Harley Street London W1G 9PF Tel. 020 8942 3148

Borough Chambers Keats House 24-26 St Thomas London SE1 9RS

Aston Clinic 26 Kingston Road Surrey KT3 3LS Tel. 020 8942 3148

Correspondence address: Aston Clinic, 26 Kingston Road, Surrey KT3 3LS Tel. 020 8942 3148

Ameen Abbas Ameen MB, ChB, LMSSA, FRCS (Neurosurgery),

+44(0)1483 685785

American Board in Clinical Neurosurgery

+44(0)1483 573704 Click to contact

Providing expert advice on all things pharmaceutical

Consultant Neurosurgeon and Medico Legal Expert, Member of Society of Expert Witnesses and APIL Mr Ameen graduated from Baghdad University with distinction in 1970, re qualified from Society of Apothecaries in London (LMSSA) in 1978. Following the basic surgical training, he was awarded the FRCS in general surgery from the Royal College of Surgeons in England and Edinburgh in 1977.

The service XPC services provides expert witness advice and written reports to both prosecuting and defence counsels in drug related criminal and similar cases. Our clients include the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Police Authorities and many private solicitors.

He then completed the Higher Neurosurgery training at the Central Middlesex and Charing Cross Hospitals London and was awarded the FRCS (Neurosurgery) by the intercollegiate board (UK) in 2007 after passing the necessary exams.

The expert witness

He has been providing Medico legal reports since 1998 to private Solicitor firms, CPS, Courts and the 6 agencies of AMRO. Attends Court as expert witness nearly twice a year. Special interest and expertise in Head and Spinal Trauma, Degenerative spinal Diseases and Clinical Negligence.

Dr Mould has an extensive and broad knowledge in the action of drugs on the body and the way in which the body deals with drugs once they are taken. He is therefore qualified to answer queries regarding clinical pharmacy, clinical pharmacology and toxicology.

The experience Consulting Room 10 Derwent Avenue, London SW15 3RD Tel: 02085469958 Mobile: 07946149868 Email: aameen5521@yahoo.com

With over 40 years of experience in the Pharmaceutical Industry and National Health Service and 5 years of providing comprehensive reports and oral evidence in court, Dr Mould is ideally placed to advise you on your drug therapy enquiry.

www.Interpretations.expert

www.alpcareconsulting.co.uk amanda.pocknell@btinternet.com

/LairdLanguages @LairdLanguages

Helping you every step of the way ALP Care Consulting is an independent healthcare consultancy which provides:

Let us give you a helping hand

• • • • • • • •

We speak your language, your client’s, plus over 4500 others. We can translate anything, no matter the size or content!

Expert Witness Care Needs Reports Rehabilitation service provider Case Management Care Management Medical Notes review Treatment Coordination Healthcare Consultancy Questions for Doctors

ALP Care Consulting is a family run business set up in 2012 by Amanda and Phil Pocknell.

For more information about our Language services contact:

ALP Care Consulting are accustomed to working with personal injury claimants during litigation and provide Expert Witness services to several leading personal injury law firms both Claimant and Defendant. Care Needs Reports and Care and Equipment needs reports are provided in the fields of Multiple trauma, Catastrophic injury and acquired brain injury.

language@laird-assessors.com

Amanda and Phil Pocknell ALP Care Consulting 23 Bluebell Road Ashford, Kent TN23 3NW

0845 505 9961

Tel Office:

+44 (0) 1233 332756

Amanda Mobile:

+44 (0) 7793 009689

Phil Mobile:

+44 (0) 7982 642091

A. Logan Pain Management Ltd. Consultant Pain Management Dr Andrew St Clair Logan FFMPRCA Expert in assessment of long term pain following injury with regards to causation, prognosis and further treatment. •

Consultations available

Spire Cheshire Hospital (Warrington/Manchester)

Please contact at: Nuffieldhealth The Grosvenor Nuffield Hospital, Wrexham Road Chester CH4 7QP

•

Spire Murrayfield Hospital (Wirrral)

•

Chester Wellness Centre

•

Nuffield Health (Chester)

Email: painconsultant@aol.com Direct telephone: 07791681278 41

Dovehouse Psychology Expert Witness Services Dr Sharna Lewis BSc Hons, MSc, DClinPsy, CPsychol Chartered Clinical Psychologist and Expert Witness (Midlands Area). I have considerable experience of conducting psycho-legal reports for Civil and Criminal Court in matters of personal injury, clinical negligence, mental capacity, fitness to plead/stand trial, cognitive functioning/learning disabilities, personality disorders and mental health. I am registered with the BPS and HCPC.

The Role of the Psychologist in Assessing Fitness to Plead and Stand Trial The law on unfitness to plead is concerned with whether or not an accused is able to stand trial and, if not, the procedure that should be used to deal with that accused. If at any time during the Court process the defendant’s competency to stand trial is questioned a full and detailed assessment should be sought. An example would be a defendant who as a result of very low intellectual ability is unable to follow the process of his or her trial. In England and Wales, the test known as the Pritchard test is applied by the courts when deciding whether a defendant is unfit to plead, however the test is outdated and inconsistently applied. Following a consultation paper in 2010 and an issues paper in 2014, on 13 January 2016 the Law Commission published its report on unfitness to plead. The Law Commission proposed that the new test should centre upon the defendant’s decision making capacity and capacity for effective participation in their trial. This brings the new test in line with modern Court proceedings and the test for capacity in civil proceedings which focuses on decision making abilities (Mental Capacity Act 2005). Up until recently the determination of a defendant’s lack of capacity relied on the evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners in general such practitioners tended to be psychiatrists. The new legislation has recognised that other professionals are suited for this role. In particular psychologists are routinely involved in assessing, formulating and treating mood and cognitive disturbances and consideration of the assistance required for defendants to participate effectively in the trial process is very much within their expertise. Consequently, the Law Commission has stipulated that one of the experts must be a registered medical practitioner duly approved under section 12 of the Mental Health Act and the second expert can be either a registered medical practitioner, registered psychologist or an individual having a qualification appearing on a list of appropriate disciplines approved by the Department of Health. A psychological assessment will usually include a detailed evaluation of the defendant’s mental health, cognitive functioning, verbal reasoning and comprehension skills, attention and concentration, short term memory, decision making abilities, suggestibility and any other relevant psychological factors. This information will be used in order to form an opinion about whether the defendant is deemed to be fit or unfit to plead and/or stand trial but more importantly the expert can make recommendations to the Court which will allow a vulnerable defendant to fully participate in the proceedings. At the heart of the Law Commissions’ recommendations is the belief that there should be a full trial wherever possible, this is because only such trials engage all the fair trial processes and guarantees for those involved. A departure from a full trial should be a last resort that is only taken when it is in the best interests of the defendant. In order to fulfil this criteria reasonable adjustments to the criminal process should be made. info@dovehousepsychology.com

07716846488 42