Calls Grow for Overhaul of Expert Witness System Amid Fears of Miscarriages of Justice

Kingston, Jamaica | BATV News | June 15, 2025

The role and regulation of expert witnesses in English courts have come under intense scrutiny, as prominent legal, political, and medical figures raise alarms over a system they say is vulnerable to bias, conflict of interest, and catastrophic error.

Former UK government officials, legal practitioners, and medical experts are urging urgent reforms to a process many now fear is undermining public trust in the justice system. Their concerns stem from a string of high-profile cases, including the convictions of Lucy Letby and the now-infamous Post Office Horizon scandal, in which expert testimony has been heavily criticised for contributing to potential miscarriages of justice.

‘Hired Guns’ or Unbiased Experts?

Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, expressed concern that expert witnesses—who are intended to provide impartial, specialist knowledge—are sometimes seen as mercenaries for hire. “They’re supposed to aid the court,” he said, “but in practice, they may comfort decision-makers with the illusion of certainty, even when the science is ambiguous.”

Jack Straw, a former justice secretary, echoed the sentiment, warning of a “nagging worry” that courts lean too heavily on unregulated, self-described experts whose qualifications and methodologies are rarely scrutinised.

Lucy Letby and the Post Office Scandal: Case Studies in Controversy

The debate has reignited after appeals were lodged in the case of former nurse Lucy Letby, convicted of killing seven infants. Her legal team alleges that expert medical evidence played a disproportionately decisive role despite lacking definitive scientific backing.

Similarly, the wrongful convictions of dozens of subpostmasters during the Post Office Horizon debacle—largely driven by flawed expert IT testimony—have cast a long shadow over the reliability of court-appointed specialists.

Systemic Gaps and Lack of Oversight

Expert witnesses are enlisted in both civil and criminal cases to explain complex technical matters beyond the average understanding of judges or jurors. Yet, critics argue that the lack of uniform training, accreditation, and oversight has made the system ripe for abuse.

Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor, identified several failings—chief among them the ability of legal teams to “shop” for sympathetic experts and the challenges of assessing international or unconventional qualifications. “A judge may not be equipped to verify whether a witness truly possesses the expertise they claim,” he warned.

Pressure, Bias, and Financial Incentives

An annual survey conducted by legal training firm Bond Solon found that over a third of expert witnesses reported witnessing “hired gun” behaviour—where testimony conveniently supports the instructing party’s case. Alarmingly, one in four felt pressured by solicitors to skew their opinions.

“There’s a structural flaw,” said Simon Berney-Edwards, head of the Expert Witness Institute. “We rely on legal teams to vet experts, but many so-called experts have never been trained in how to present evidence or navigate court procedures.”

Medical Community Raises Red Flags

Medical professionals are also calling for reform. Prof Sir Norman Williams, who led a 2018 government review into prosecutions against healthcare workers, said the inconsistency of medical expert opinions remains a major concern. His report highlighted a lack of standardized qualifications and proposed increased training, though little progress has been made since.

Dr Jonathan Lord, a consultant gynaecologist with the NHS, added that the lucrative nature of expert testimony in civil cases creates the risk of conflicts of interest. “Some witnesses earn substantial fees,” he said, “and the incentive to secure repeat work can compromise objectivity.”

Reform on the Horizon?

While most stakeholders agree that expert witnesses are essential for modern justice, there is growing consensus that regulation must be tightened. Proposals include mandatory registration, minimum training standards, and greater judicial oversight.

“Justice depends not only on truth, but on trust in the system delivering it,” said Grieve. “Without clearer standards for those guiding our courts on technical matters, we risk failing both.”

Contact BATV for interviews, insights, and updates on legal reforms impacting the Caribbean and beyond.

For feedback: contact the BATV Editorial Division at: info@batvja.com