Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • · • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • 2 Timetable for the day Friday

• Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome •

1

Communicating yourKnowledgeSpring Conference 2009Beaumont House,Old WindsorFriday 24 April 2009

The Committee of Management of the Society of ExpertWitnesses welcomes you to the Society’s 22nd conference.The Society of Expert Witnesses prides itself in being theonly independent, representative, non-commercial bodyrun entirely by experts for experts. One of its mostimportant functions is to act as a voice for the expertwitness community, ensuring that all those who influencethe role of the expert witness hear our views. The overallaim of the Society is to establish and maintain a level ofexcellence amongst its members – ‘each towardsexcellence striving’.We hope that you will find the varied programme of thisconference interesting, inspirational and enjoyable. TheCommittee of Management looks forward to meeting youand hopes that you will use this ideal opportunity to forgenew contacts and to get to know your Society colleagues.

This Conference Pack contains the following: the programme of events and other useful information a list of participants, speakers and guests brief biographies, and support materials provided by our speakers a Feedback Form (yellow) a Society Dinner menu (green) a badge an attendance certificate.

WHAT TO DO NOW

The Feedback Form (yellow) is a great opportunity for you to comment on this conference andto mould the structure of future meetings. To date, we have found that the Feedback Formshave helped us develop our conference policy to reflect the needs and desires of our members.


2

Timetable for the dayFriday 24 April

09.30 Registration and Coffee

10.00–10.05 Welcome and Introduction

10.05–10.15 The expert under pressureTom Magner, SEW Press Officer & Forensic Engineer

10.15 Session 1: Communication and Credibility – Philip Evans

Barrister, Philip Evans, leads this session which assesses the impact andconsequences of failing to communicate expert evidence clearly, how and why it can

go wrong, and ways in which it can threaten credibility.

11.15–11.45 Coffee

11.45 Session 2: The Importance of Being SimpleDavid Corke, Graham Doughty and Roland Barber

11.45–12.00 Civil Engineer, David Corke, headlines the fundamental principles of communicatingcomplex ideas in simple steps.

12.00–13.00 Road Traffic Accident Investigator, Graham Doughty, made legal history in overturninga magistrates’ court’s decision that he was not an expert. With the help of fellow

investigator, Roland Barber, he illustrates the importance and the influence of goodcommunication skills, whatever the field of expertise.

13.00–14.15 Lunch

14.15 Session 3: Making Words Count – Cindy Buxton

14.15–14.50 Legal presentation consultant and former television documentary producer, CindyBuxton, shows how visualising complex issues can help

get simple ideas across to the court.

14.55 Session 4: Law Commission Consultation – Dr Chris Pamplin

14.55–15.30 Editor of the UK Register of Expert Witnesses, Dr Chris Pamplin, introduces the LawCommission’s Consultation on creating a pre-trial test

of the reliability of expert evidence.

15.30–16.00 Tea

16.00 Session 5: Society Debate

16.00–17.30 The speakers join forces to draw together the themes of the day. They will offer moredetailed advice and debate, in a Question Time format, the balance between clear

communication and overselling the expert’s opinion.

17.30 Closing remarks

19.30 Drinks reception – Beaumont Lounge Bar

20.00 Society Dinner – Restaurant Section 2


3

Useful information for delegatesVENUE AND CONFERENCE FACILITIESThe Society’s Spring Conference will be held inthe Beaumont Suite at Beaumont House,Burfield Road, Old Windsor, Berkshire,SL4 2JJ. (Tel: 01753 640 000;Fax: 01753 640 100).Beaumont House is set in 40 acres oflandscaped ground. Dating back to the 17th

century, it has been extensively refurbished.Beaumont also has a health and fitness centre,and the facilities include a heated swimmingpool, a gymnasium and tennis and squashcourts.

TODAY’S ORGANISERSOur Registration Desk will be staffed today byTeresa Baron. If you have any problems,please seek out Teresa and she will be pleasedto help.

PARKINGFree on-site parking.

LUNCHA hot and cold buffet lunch will be served in therestaurant. If you have already informed us of aspecial dietary requirement or food allergy, yourfood will be served separately. In such cases,please make yourself known to the cateringstaff as soon as you arrive at the lunch venue.

ACCOMMODATIONThe bedrooms are spacious, luxuriouslyfurnished and well equipped, offeringtea/coffee-making facilities, trouser press, ironand ironing board, hair dryer, TV, high-speedinternet access and luxury bedding.

MOBILITYBeaumont House is wheelchair friendly.

RECEPTION AND DINNERFriday 24 April 2009The reception will be held in the BeaumontLounge Bar at 7.30pm. Our Society Dinner willbe served at 8.00pm in the restaurant,Section 2.Dress: Lounge suits.

TOURIST INFORMATIONOld Windsor was the oldest Saxon town inBerkshire, originally the site of an importantpalace of the Saxon kings, and the seat ofEdward the Confessor. It continued inimportance up until about 1100, when it wasgradually overshadowed by the building ofWindsor Castle 2 miles upstream.

Old Windsor was popular with the monarchbecause of its convenient location – near theriver for transport and Windsor Forest forhunting. Old Windsor was also an early minsterlocation and market, probably associated with alock (hence the need for a winch) and importantriverside mill complex. The Saxon palace waseventually superseded by the Norman castle –Windsor Castle – at ‘New’ Windsor. However,the Medieval manor house became a popularroyal hunting lodge at a time when the castlewas a fortress, rather than a comfortableresidence. ‘Old’ Windsor has this prefix due tothe movement up the Thames to ‘New’Windsor, originally because of a chickenpoxepidemic.

There are numerous opportunities for fishingand boating and, although there is muchmodern housing development adjacent to themain roads, the towpath walks still retain theirrural charm. The southeast of the parish adjoinsthe county of Surrey, where the road fromWindsor to Staines leads to historicRunnymede. It was here on 15 June 1215 thatKing John sealed the Magna Carta.Old Windsor is located just south of the town ofWindsor and near to the villages of EnglefieldGreen and Dachet. It sits on the River Thamesand in the summer provides a pleasant walkalong the river’s edge to Old Windsor Lock.Windsor Great Park is largely within the boundsof Old Windsor, including both the Royal andCumberland Lodges.Information on: 01753 743 900 or visit their website at www.windsor.gov.uk

SOCIETY TIESAn official Society of Expert Witnesses tie canbe purchased by Members from theRegistration Desk. The pure silk ties, printedwith the Society logo, are available in a choiceof red or blue and cost £17.50 (including VAT).Please make cheques payable to the Society ofExpert Witnesses.

FORTHCOMING CONFERENCESThe Autumn Conference and AGM 2009 will beheld on Friday 16 October 2009 at Mottram Hallin Cheshire.As always, we are open to ideas for locationsand venues for our conferences. If you have asuggestion, simply drop us a line with relevantdetails.


4

List of conference delegatesAs of 22 April 2009 the following were registered to attend this conference.MODERATORMr Tom Magner, SEW Press Officer & Consultant

Forensic Engineer

SPEAKERS AND WORKSHOP PRESENTERSMr Roland Barber, Road Traffic Accident

InvestigatorMr Mark Barrett, AccountantMs Cindy Buxton, Legal Presentation

ConsultantMr David Corke, Geotechnical ConsultantMr Richard Cory-Pearce, SEW Secretary,

Consultant SurgeonMr Graham Doughty, Road Traffic Accident

InvestigatorMr Philip Evans, BarristerMr Frazer Imrie, SEW Chairman, Forensic

BiologistDr Chris Pamplin, Editor, UK Register of Expert

Witnesses

SOCIETY MEMBERSProfessor Raymond Arnold, Chartered

Electrical EngineerDr Malcolm Bailey, Forensic EngineerMr Ian Biles, Marine ConsultantDr Gerrard Burnett, Dental SurgeonMr Terence Cain, Consultant Orthopaedic

SurgeonMr Eddie Chaloner, Consultant Vascular

SurgeonEur Ing Simon Clarke, Consultant MetallurgistMr Edward Compton, Consultant Orthopaedic

SurgeonMr Paul Croft, Road Crash InvestigatorMr Rick Cronk, Mechanical EngineerMr James Davies, Chartered Electrical

EngineerProfessor Robert Douglas, Respiratory

PhysiologistMr James Eddy, Photogrammetrist & Photo

InterpreterDr Marta Elian, NeurologistMr Miles Emblin, Insurance ConsultantDr R C Hanumara, Orthopaedic SurgeonMr Clive Haslock, Forensic Accountant

Dr Terry Henman, Cambridge PolymerConsultants

Dr Peter Hewitt, Occupational & EnvironmentalHealth & Safety Consultant

Mr Stephen Hiscock, BankerDr John Jackson, Occupational PhysicianMr Peter Jones, Health & Safety ConsultantDr Eddie Josse, SEW Vice-Chairman, Clinical

Forensic Medicine ConsultantMr Jim Kernohan, Consultant Orthopaedic

SurgeonDr Joanna Lindley, Medical Advisor

(Paediatrics)Mr R S Maurice-Williams, Consultant

NeurosurgeonMr Alan Myers, Structural EngineerMr Graham Oakley, Accident Investigation

ConsultantMr Marcus Ornstein, Consultant SurgeonMr Alfred Pare, AccountantMr David Price, NeurosurgeonDr Bashir Qureshi, Expert Witness in Cultural,

Religious & Ethnic Issues in LitigationProfessor David Reeves, Consultant Medical

MicrobiologistDr Jeffrey Rosenberg, Consultant

RheumatologistDr Tracey Ryan-Morgan, Consultant Clinical

NeuropsychologistDr Caroline Schuster-Cotterell, Chartered

PsychologistMr John Shaw, Consultant ENT SurgeonMr Roger Smart, Electrical EngineerMr John S S Stewart, Consultant General

SurgeonMr Adam Stronach, Chartered AccountantDrs Rene Westbroek, Consultant PsychologistMr Richard White, Timber in Construction

NON-MEMBERSMs Sally Cadec, Consultant/Director, Safeguard

Security Consultants LtdDr Bernard Norman, Consultant Anaesthetist

REGISTRATION DESKTeresa Baron, SEW Membership Liaison OfficerMrs Janice Imrie, SEW Registration

Society of Expert Witnesses, Spring Conference 2009

5

The expert under pressure 10.05Tom Magner BSc(Hons) EurIng CEng MIMechE MIET MCIOJSEW Press Officer, Journalist & Consulting EngineerBIOGRAPHYThe Society’s Press Officer, Tom Magner, is apractising independent forensic scientist,established writer and broadcaster.He is a Chartered Engineer with 27 years’national and international experience andexpertise in the independent forensicinvestigation of mechanical and electricalaccidents and incidents for the assistance ofHM Coroners, Criminal, Civil and CommercialCourts.As a journalist and broadcaster, Tom worksacross BBC and independent radio andtelevision on topics ranging from science andtechnology to the investigation and reporting ofconsumer and social affairs issues. Hisproduction credits include BBC’s Watchdog andRogue Traders. He is also an independent filmmaker for output in the UK and abroad.In addition to handling media enquiries, Tomwrites and edits the newsroom section of theSociety’s current website.

OUTLINEDespite confidence amongst expert witnessesto the contrary, the legal system is populatedwith examples of specialists being criticised forfailing to communicate complex concepts inclear and simple terms. One judge said of theexpert witnesses in a case that ‘The reportsprepared for the Court by the DNA expertsshould bear in mind that they are addressinglay people. The report should strive to interprettheir analysis in clear language.’It may not ultimately turn a trial verdict on itshead, but, for a tribunal, lack of properunderstanding or command of a technical issuecan reduce the weight it places on the expert’s

evidence. It may even open the door to anattack on the professional and personalcredibility of the expert witness.Clarity, brevity and an accurately expressedrange of professional opinion are the keys toeffective presentation in reports and in thewitness box. From interpreting medical recordsto reporting the findings of fraud caseaccountancy, explaining the geologicalfundamentals of beach sand on the move to theinner psychology of balancing family values,getting complex technical messages and issuesacross to a lay audience is an art in itself.Could you summarise your knowledge andexpertise, with simplicity and accuracy, whenput on the spot in a quick-fire test ofknowledge? Could you explain the mostcomplex issue in your specialist field in asentence? Could you write the essentials of acase investigation and report in less than an A4page?The fear of letting go of the assumptions behindevery professional opinion is listed by expertsas the main difficulty they face when conveyingcomplex information in simple terms in reportsand in the witness box. Accusations of over-simplification and introducing inadvertent biascome a close second.The conference sessions feature a range ofspeakers who will highlight, define and illustratethe fundamental principles of getting evidenceacross in reports and in person – tricks and tipsabout handling assumptions, methods ofrecognising the key points in an investigationand how to summarise complicated scienceand information.

NOTES


6

Session 1: Communication and Credibility

Communication and credibility 10.15Philip Evans LLB MABarristerBIOGRAPHYPhilip is recognised as one of the country’sleading junior advocates with expertise inserious and complex crime. He has recentlyappeared for both the prosecution and thedefence in some of the highest profile criminalmatters that have been tried. In those cases hehas acted both as leader and junior. He iscurrently involved in several complex matterswaiting to come before the courts.He has a strong practice in private corporatework, having recently been instructed on behalfof private companies and individuals who arenot themselves defendants but require advicerelating to matters such as fraud (civil andcriminal), potential criminal liability rising fromcorporate activities, confiscation, compensationand related areas.He has extensive experience appearing beforeregulatory tribunals such as police tribunals.There, he has represented numerous policeofficers, from first instance tribunal through tothe Police Appeals Tribunal.Philip has particular expertise in road traffic-related matters. He has acted privately forclients of some notoriety. They have includedthe managing director of a multi-national carmanufacturer, the wife of the chairman of a highstreet bank, premiership footballers and theirfamilies, along with a world-famous theatreproducer. These cases have involved alcohol-related matters, speeding, avoidance ofdisqualification under the totting provisions andspeeding-related offences, and matters ofdangerous driving and death by dangerousdriving.His advocacy skills have also been utilisedextensively in Council chambers across thesouth of England, where he has acted in anumber of licensing matters.OUTLINEBarrister Philip Evans from QEB HollisWhiteman Chambers assesses the impact andconsequences of failing to deliver expertevidence clearly, how and why it can go wrongand ways in which it can threaten theindividual’s professional and personalcredibility.

The use of complex language in written reportsand oral evidence can lead to justice beingblinded by science and can run the risk of theCourt coming to the wrong conclusion.Examples include the cases of: a man accused of robbing a jewellery shop

after police forensic evidence suggestedthat hair found at the scene matched hisown. Later, an independent forensic expertemployed by the man’s solicitor was able toshow that in fact the hair had come from adog

a mother was charged with killing her babyby dosing it with barbiturate drugs to try tomake it go to sleep. Just before the trialstarted, the police forensic expert realisedthat, in the complicated statistical analysis,a decimal point had appeared in the wrongplace in his report, multiplying the amount ofthe drug supposedly found in the baby’sbody by a factor of 10. The true level couldnot have killed the child. It had been a victimof cot death.

One judge said of expert witnesses in a casebefore the Family Courts that ‘The reportsprepared for the Court by the DNA expertsshould bear in mind that they are addressinglay people. The report should strive to interprettheir analysis in clear language.’Some legal analysts believe that, despite theseand other high-profile examples of expertwitnesses presenting evidence in a complicatedway, many lawyers continue to regard expertevidence as difficult, if not impossible, tochallenge. One of the chief causes is claimed tobe the complexity of the jargon, makingquestioning the science, even with a party’sown expert assistance, appear too difficult.One of the hallmarks of an independent expertwitness is believed by top lawyers to besomeone who not only has the relevant andapplicable technical knowledge and trackrecord but also, more importantly, the ability toprovide short answers that are directly on point.Experts who regularly provide longer-than-necessary answers are perceived to be morelikely to get themselves and the case intotrouble. Lawyers are encouraged to selectwitnesses who can explain their craft to the


7

people who will serve on the jury. Most expertswork primarily with highly educated andmotivated peers and students who have thebasic vocabulary and education necessary tobe conversant in a specialised field of study.

These people are nothing like the jury. Beforeemploying an expert, lawyers are encouragedto test the ability of the expert witness to explaindifficult concepts quickly and in simple terms.

NOTES


8

NOTES


9

Session 2: The Importance of Being Simple

The importance of being simple 11.45David CorkeBSc CEng FICEBIOGRAPHYAfter a career of 35 years in the constructionindustry, as a consulting engineer and then forcompanies specialising in site investigation andfoundations and underground construction, forthe last 4 years David has been an independentconsultant.David now specialises in consultancy relating toconstruction underground, provides technicaladvice, and has advised in a number ofdisputes.

So far, all disputes have been settled bydiscussion, except for one, where at least theparties involved have not stopped talking!Helping to bring a clear and easily understoodview to all concerned is considered to be anessential for dispute resolution. Hence, ‘TheImportance of being Simple’.

OUTLINECivil engineer, David Corke, headlines thefundamental principles of communicatingcomplex ideas in simple steps.

NOTES


10

NOTES


11

In simple terms 12.00Graham Doughty LCGI MCIT MILT MInstTA MIRTE MSOERoad Traffic Accident Consultant

Roland Barber Btec MILT MinstTARoad Traffic Accident ConsultantBIOGRAPHIESGraham Doughty is a retired MetropolitanPolice traffic patrol officer, advanced accidentinvestigator and reconstruction officer.In 1992 he passed courses on speed detectiondevices such as Police Pilot, Vascar, Truveloand MuniQuip. In 1994 he also qualified in theuse of the LTI 20:20 Laser Speed Detector.Prior to joining the Metropolitan Police, he wasin the Royal Engineers for 13 years, as a Grade1 Combat Engineer, responsible for running a10-man team organising explosives fordemolition, mine clearance, road and bridgedesign, and water purification and supply. Heserved in the Falklands conflict.Since 1999, Graham has been a Director ofTransport Management Consultants Ltd,forensic transport investigators and tachographanalysts. In 2004, he passed his MastersDegree in Transport Law with distinction.

Roland Barber has extensive experience withtransport operation. After a successful careerwith the police, he joined TransportManagement Consultants Ltd to continueassisting operators with operational problemswith drivers’ hours and tachograph procedures.

OUTLINEThe way a journalist researches and writes up astory is similar to the way an expert witnessshould express, with clarity and simplicity, thesubject of their report. Stories like all goodexpert witness reports should be firmly foundedin reality.In this session, two experts, Graham Doughtyand Roland Barber, illustrate the principles ofclear and accurate story-telling, featuring a fightfor justice, not for a defendant in a criminal trialor a claimant in a civil trial, but for anexperienced expert witness whose reputationwas on the line.Road traffic investigator, Graham Doughty,made legal history recently after successfullyoverturning the decision of a magistrates’ courtthat he was not to be classified as an expert inspeed camera procedures.

In this case, the story finds the expert on whatshould have been a routine assignment, givingevidence within his specialist knowledge andexperience on a case before the Bench at ElyMagistrates’ Court. Taking a leaf out of moderndocumentary production techniques, Grahamand Roland tell the story in their own words.Part 1: Getting the framework down onpaper1 Write a summary in the clearest, simplestlanguage you can use2 Define in layman’s terms any complicatedtechnology, issue or jargon3 Think of simple, even basic, questions thatyou might be asked by an interested observer4 Check with a colleague that the summary canbe read without needing to ask any questionsPart 2: Writing the story1 This is the hard part and it will notmiraculously happen at the first time of asking.You have to craft this story in terms that yourreaders will understand, without making it sosimple that other experts complain that you gotit all wrong and want to change it back.2 To start the drafting process, it is best to startsimple and add layers of complexity, rather thanto write very technically and then try to dumb itdown for your audience.3 Begin by writing the story as if you’repreparing to address a class of sixth formerswith no attention span, employing ways to keepthem interested:(i) use good analogies – Whenever possible,explain how something works by comparing it tosomething else that everyone understands. Ifyou’re writing about structural engineering,explain how building materials interact bycomparing them with assembling a jigsawpuzzle or baking a cake.(ii) offer some examples – It is one thing to tellthe audience about a technology or a machine;it’s quite another to show them how somethingworks. The manufacturing process can actuallybe quite compelling once you break down thesteps and show all that goes into making yourproduct.


12

(iii) find some decent quotes – Instead oflong, boring quotes from experts explaining howsomething works, experts need to make short,clear statements about why something works,and what makes it important.Part 3: Would graphic aids help?This is crucial. All stories need as much graphichelp as we can give them, and the longer thestory, the more it needs to be easy on the eyes.But technical stories are in a category all oftheir own. Report writers should look for waysto:1 include charts and graphics – a visualdemonstration of how something works can dowonders. Just make sure the graphic isn’t moreconfusing than the text. Like your words,graphics have to explain a complicated subjectin the simplest terms possible.2 present a glossary – technical terms needdefinitions, and a glossary is a nice way to

package them. The glossary is there for thosewho need to use it, and it does not intrude onthose who are a bit more techno-savvy.3. consider including headlined footnotes –for readers who want to know more but do notwant the stream of text cluttered.Part 4: Fact checking/approval1 No matter what your approval process, makesure you leave enough time to go over thereport with a colleague.2 Rather than waiting for the final document, itmay be better to send him/her passages orsections as you go.3 If you write a definition of a complicated term,e-mail it to your colleague for approval.4 If you write a footnote about ‘How it works’,ask your colleague to give it a once over andsuggest changes.

NOTES


13

NOTES


14

Session 3: Making Words Count

Making words count 14.15Cindy BuxtonLegal Presentation ConsultantBIOGRAPHYCindy Buxton, born and brought up in the UK,has spent most of her working life abroad. Sheis now in London from Colorado, operating theLondon office for Z-Axis.Cindy joined Z-Axis in early 1997 after asuccessful career in the British televisionindustry, where for 25 years she directed andfilmed wildlife documentaries for the famousSurvival series of Anglia Television. The filmsare distributed to more than 110 countries. Shehas won three major awards for her work,published two books, a scientific paper andwritten numerous articles in various naturalhistory magazines.One of her many talents is in thoroughlyresearching and working closely with lawyers,barristers and experts so that she fullyunderstands a project or case that she isinvolved with which enables her to assist theproducer with the necessary visualpresentations. With 12 years as a producerunder her belt, her new role as Z-Axis’s UKconsultant will prove very beneficial to her UKclients.

OUTLINELegal presentation consultant and formertelevision documentary producer, Cindy Buxton,shows how visualising complex issues can helpget simple ideas across to the court.Avoiding wordinessThere are many ways of avoiding wordiness. Afew basic guidelines are given in this section.Cut the clutterGood writers develop a concise style, whichavoids redundant words. A good tip for editing adraft is to go through it and cross out any wordsthat don’t add to the meaning, while at thesame time looking for more concise ways ofsaying the same thing.Avoid circumlocutionsA ‘circumlocution’ is the use of many wordswhen just a few will do – an easy trap to fall intowhen trying to make a point a little moreforcefully! Here are some examples, togetherwith simpler ways of expressing the same idea:• It is possible thatMay, might, could

• There is no doubt thatDoubtless• Used for... purposesUsed• He is a man who...He• In a hasty mannerHastily• At this point in timeNow/then• In the near futureSoon• Prior to, in anticipation of, following on, at thesame time asBefore, after, as• Notwithstanding the fact that, despite the factthatAlthough• Concerning the matter ofAbout• The reason for, owing to the reason that, onthe grounds thatBecause, since, why• If it should transpire that, in the event thatIf• With regard toAbout• Owing to the fact that, due to the fact that, inview of the fact thatSince, because• This is a subject whichThis subject• In a situation in whichWhen• Is able to, has the capacity toCan• On the occasion ofWhen• For the purpose ofTo• The question as to whetherWhether


15

Avoid ‘padding’ words and tautologiesThere are some other words of this type whichare pure padding and can be omitted – forexample, ‘basically’ or ‘current’ as in ‘thecurrent chairman’ when you are not referring topast or future chairmen.Tautologies are those words that mean thesame thing: safe haven, future prospects,weather conditions, etc. Sometimes, tautologiesare used for rhetorical effect, but at other timesremoving one unnecessary word will improveconciseness.Avoid unnecessary determiners, qualifiersand modifiersThere are some words which appear to modifya noun but which merely clutter up thesentence.Example Managers need some [kind of] extra help if

they are to avoid getting bogged down withpaperwork.

It is [basically] in order to... The [sort of] person I would like to meet is... The software was implemented and tested

on a cohort of level 2 students who had, [ingeneral], studied French for 8 years.

[To a certain extent] women no longer lagbehind men in terms of pay in certain areas.

Either omit these words or give specific details.Avoid using noun formulations of verbsThere is an increasing tendency in the Englishlanguage to use noun formations to replace aperfectly good verb.ExampleThe articles should de-mystique the subject byexplaining complicated concepts and offeringdefinitions where appropriate.should beThe articles should demystify the subject byexplaining complicated concepts and offeringdefinitions where appropriate.The top example uses a noun formation from‘mystique’, but the word ‘demystify’ means justthe same thing and is more common parlance.

Change clauses into phrases and phrasesinto single wordsSometimes, phrasal constructions can bereduced to adjectives:• The employee with talentThe talented employee• The economy with the best performanceThe best performing economyRelative clauses can also sometimes bereworded:• The prisoner who had been recently releasedThe recently-released prisoner• The IT system that met most of ourrequirementsThe most compatible IT systemOther clauses can be worded more simply, asin the following example in which two clausesare put together as one:• If citing a shortish extract, you can do this byjust reproducing it within the articleA short extract can be reproduced within thearticleTry to avoid phrases like ‘It was’ and ‘There is’:• There is a tendency amongst managers of Xcompany...Managers of X company tend to...• It was Kotler who said...Kotler said...Some infinitive phrases (those that use verbswith ‘to’) can be turned into sentences withactive verbs:• The responsibility of a leader is to motivateand inspireA leader should motivate and inspire• The product is considered to be soundThe product is considered soundSometimes verbal phrases with gerunds (-ingwords) can be turned into adjectives:• Because of the ground being roughBecause of the rough groundAvoid repetition or excessive detailWhen you read through a draft, check you arenot repeating things unnecessarily or putting intoo much detail.

NOTES


16

NOTES


17

Session 4: Law Commission Consultation

Law Commission Consultation 14.55Christopher Pamplin BSc PhD FGSEditor, UK Register of Expert WitnessesBIOGRAPHYDr Chris Pamplin is Editor of the UK Register ofExpert Witnesses and has been so since itsfoundation in 1988. Prior to that, Chris attendedLiverpool University where he obtained his BScin Geology. He then moved on to the Universityof Southampton to study the structural geologyof North Cornwall, which involved lots of cliff-topwalking, sliding down scree slopes and eatingCornish ice creams.He is now involved with expert witnesses on adaily basis offering advice on expert witnesspractice and procedure. He is the current Editorof Your Witness, a quarterly newsletter forexpert witnesses, and has written books onexpert witness fees, expert witness practice andstarting out as an expert witness. He was alsoinstrumental in bringing together interestedexpert witnesses to form the Society of ExpertWitnesses.Now, his expert opinion is called upon byjournalists and lawyers to inform discussions,and by government bodies such as theForensic Science Regulator, the Legal ServicesCommission and the Law Commission to helpdevelop and contribute to consultations.OUTLINEProposal 1: A gate-keeper roleThe Law Commission’s key proposal is thatthere should be an explicit ‘gate-keeping’ rolefor the trial judge with a clearly defined test fordetermining whether proffered expert evidenceis sufficiently reliable to be admitted. Theapplication of this test would determine whetherthe tendered evidence is admissible as a matterof law.After first determining that the proposed expertevidence is logically relevant to the disputedmatter, that it would provide the jury withsubstantial assistance and that the witness istruly expert and able to provide an impartialopinion, the judge would need to address thegate-keeping question. The question is whetherthe evidence is sufficiently reliable to beconsidered, and ultimately accepted, by aCrown Court jury.The Law Commission provisionally proposesthat there should be a statutory provision alongthe following lines:

(1) The opinion evidence of an expert witness isadmissible only if the court is satisfied that it issufficiently reliable to be admitted.(2) The opinion evidence of an expert witness issufficiently reliable to be admitted if: –(a) the evidence is predicated on soundprinciples, techniques and assumptions;(b) those principles, techniques andassumptions have been properly applied to thefacts of the case; and(c) the evidence is supported by thoseprinciples, techniques and assumptions asapplied to the facts of the case.(3) It is for the party wishing to rely on theopinion evidence of an expert witness to showthat it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted.Thus, the trial judge would not only consider thereliability of the expert’s hypothesis,methodology and assumptions, but would alsoexamine how the expert has applied them tothe case and, if properly applied, whether theexpert’s conclusion is logically sustainable.Such a test would put experts on notice thatthey will be expected to provide the trial judgewith evidence about the basis of their expertopinion sufficient to enable the judge toconclude that their evidence would provide thejury with reliable information.Acknowledge the distinction betweenscientific and experiential expertiseWhile much expert evidence is based inscience, there is the whole area of expertevidence based on experience (e.g. forensicaccountancy or experts in custom and practicefor a particular trade). The Law Commissionrecognises this and proposes two distinct setsof guidelines to cover each type of expertevidence.For scientific expert evidence it proposes thefollowing:In determining whether scientific (or purportedlyscientific) expert evidence is sufficiently reliableto be admitted, the court shall consider thefollowing factors and any other factorsconsidered to be relevant:(a) whether the principles, techniques and

assumptions relied on have been properlytested, and, if so, the extent to which the


18

results of those tests demonstrate that theyare sound;

(b) the margin of error associated with theapplication of, and conclusions drawn from,the principles, techniques and assumptions;

(c) whether there is a body of specialisedliterature relating to the field;

(d) the extent to which the principles,techniques and assumptions have beenconsidered by other scientists – for examplein peer-reviewed publications – and, if so,the extent to which they are regarded assound in the scientific community;

(e) the expert witness’s relevant qualifications,experience and publications and his or herstanding in the scientific community;

(f) the scientific validity of opposing views (ifany) and the relevant qualifications andexperience and professional standing in thescientific community of the scientists whohold those views; and

(g) whether there is evidence to suggest thatthe expert witness has failed to act inaccordance with his or her overriding duty ofimpartiality.

It would be for the trial judge to determinewhether a field of expertise is to be classified asscientific and assessed in accordance withthese guidelines. With regard to factor (a), theexpert would need to show that theexperimental or observational tests wereconducted in an objective, scientifically validway with appropriate comparators (e.g. controlgroups) and safeguards (e.g. measures toprotect against contamination).For experiential expert evidence it proposes thefollowing guidance:In determining whether experience-basedexpert evidence is sufficiently reliable to beadmitted, the court shall consider the followingfactors (where applicable) and any other factorsconsidered to be relevant:(a) the expert’s qualifications, practical

experience, training and publications andhis or her standing in the professional orother expert community;

(b) the extent to which the basis and validity ofthe expert’s opinion can be explained, withparticular reference to:(i) the extent to which the basis of theopinion (for example, any assumption reliedupon) has been verified or discredited;(ii) the specific instances which support theclaim to experience-based expertise;

(iii) the bearing those instances have on thematter(s) in issue; and(iv) whether the expert’s methodology orreasoning has previously resulted in ademonstrably valid or erroneous opinion;

(c) whether there is a body of specialisedliterature relating to the field of expertiseand, if so:(i) the extent to which it supports orundermines the expert’s methodology andreasoning; and(ii) the extent to which the expert’smethodology and reasoning are recognisedas acceptable amongst his or her peers;

(d) whether there is evidence to suggest thatthe expert has failed to act in accordancewith his or her overriding duty of impartiality.

Based on this guidance, the reliability of experttestimony on forensic document examinationwould be determined on the basis of, amongstother things the witness’s experience the number of standard points of

comparison used and a detailed description of the process by

which the expert reached the given opinion.In the areas of professional, non-scientificexpertise where there are well-acceptedpractices and methodologies, e.g. accountancy,it should be sufficient that the expert followedaccepted practices and has provided asufficient explanation of what was done.Proposal 2: The onus of persuasionThe Law Commission proposes that any partyto an action, or the judge, should be able toraise the question of evidential reliability as apreliminary issue. If raised: the judge could take ‘judicial notice’ of the

evidentiary reliability of the proposedevidence if reliability has already beenclearly established (and no newdevelopments have arisen), or

if the expert evidence is patently unreliable(e.g. a party wished to adduce expertevidence from an astrologer), the judgecould hold that it is inadmissible without theneed for detailed investigation, or

the judge would investigate the evidentiaryreliability of the proffered expert evidence inaccordance with the three-stage test. Theparty tendering the evidence would need todemonstrate that the expert’s hypothesisand methodology comprise a reliable basisfor the expert testimony. In accordance with


19

the Criminal Procedure Rules, the expertwould have a duty to provide details ofresearch findings that undermine the validityof his hypothesis or reasoning

Importunately, at no stage of this inquiry intothe reliability of the underpinning body ofknowledge is it incumbent on the judge, theparties or the experts to show or determine ifthe opinion given by the expert is actuallycorrect. The test is only whether the opinion isgrounded in a body of knowledge that is itselfdeemed reliable.Further issuesCourt-appointed assessorIt would be for the trial judge to provide areasoned decision on admissibility withreference to the criteria for assessingevidentiary reliability. Nevertheless, indetermining whether expert scientific evidenceis sufficiently reliable to be admitted, the LawCommission sees merit in an argument that thejudge should exceptionally (that is, in caseswhere the evidence or field is particularly

difficult) be permitted to call upon anindependent assessor to provide assistanceand guidance.EducationThe Law Commission believes that judges (andcriminal practitioners) should receive practicaltraining on the methodology of science, thestandards for determining the statisticalsignificance of research findings and how todetermine the reliability of experience-basedexpertise.AccreditationThe Law Commission believes that if a systemof non-compulsory accreditation of expertwitnesses is encouraged, and the process ofaccreditation were to provide a further hallmarkof reliability, there is no reason why the judgeshould not take into account, as an additionalrelevant consideration, the fact that an expertwitness is or is not accredited when addressingthe evidentiary reliability of his or her expertevidence.

NOTES


20

NOTES


21

Session 5: Society DebateDoes the perfect pitch mean justice?

16.00

NOTES


22

Saturday morning workshopsBecause of their popularity, numbers at these workshops are strictly limited. They offer membershigh-quality hands-on training run in small groups by senior expert witnesses.

Workshop 1: Terms of Appointment Wessex 7, 10.00–12.30Richard Cory-PearceSEW Secretary & Consultant SurgeonBIOGRAPHYRichard Cory-Pearce is a Practising Surgeonactively engaged in expert witness work. Hegraduated in 1968 and followed a broad trainingin surgery, at the same time pursuing hisestablished interest in organ transplantationand transplantation immunology.After working as a Consultant Surgeon andUniversity Lecturer in Cambridge, he enteredwhole-time private practice in Harley Streetwhere his involvement in expert witness workbecame an increasingly important interest.He is Immediate Past President of the HarveianSociety of London, President-elect of theHunterian Society and Editor of its annals, theTransactions of the Hunterian Society. He is aFellow of the Medical Society of London and ofthe Royal Society of Medicine; he alsorepresents the Royal College of Surgeons of

England at the National Heart Forum. He is aMember of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.OUTLINEThe Civil Procedure Rules and the associatedPractice Directions have for some time requiredexperts and those instructing them to establishand agree clear and comprehensive termsgoverning each appointment. The directions arenot only specific and prescriptive but also givean exhaustive list of aspects to be included.This workshop covers all the requirements ofthe CPR, working through the rules anddirections and explaining the technique ofcareful drafting of the relevant terms. A CDcontaining source material, typical terms anduseful modifications is provided for allparticipating experts, who should each bring alaptop to work from the CD during the session.

Workshop 2: Oral Evidence Wessex 10, 10.00–12.30Frazer ImrieSEW Chairman & Forensic BiologistBIOGRAPHYFrazer Imrie worked in the food industry forsome 25 years, initially as a research scientist,eventually reaching divisional chief executiverank. After taking early retirement, Frazerbecame an independent full-time consultant,which he carries out through his own companycalled Imrie Consulting Ltd.Frazer has been a food consultant for some 20years. More recently he has become associatedwith CWA Consultants Ltd, where he managesthe Food Technology Department. His maincasework is the preparation of cases forlitigation. He has appeared frequently in courtand in arbitration tribunals.Frazer has carried out project work for variousinternational bodies such as FAO, UNDP and

UNESCO. He is on the consultants’ list of theInstitute of Biology and the Institute of FoodScience & Technology.OUTLINEEnglish law places great emphasis on the valueof oral evidence. Indeed, in 2005 the LawSociety pointed out that the process of givingoral evidence is much to be preferred overwritten evidence. This is especially true ofexpert evidence because oral examinationgives the opportunity to question the credentialsand credibility of an expert witness. Thisworkshop deals with the process of giving oralevidence and offers some tips on minimisingthe very real stress occasioned by the process.


23

Workshop 3:Managing your Tax Affairs Wessex 11, 10.00–12.30Mark BarrettChartered Management AccountantBIOGRAPHYHaving chosen to study as a CharteredManagement Accountant to gain industry-basedexperience, Mark qualified as a Fellow of theInstitute with full Practising Certificate at 27.His first directorship was achieved at 26 in anengineering company, and attained aninternational company directorship at 27. By theage of 29, Mark had established his ownPractice and the first project was to lead alisting on the Stock Exchange’s 3rd market – abaptism of fire! The Practice became internationally based, withoffices in Manhattan and London, and the workwas centred on the role as a problem fixer orcompany doctor. Having had many years in thatrole and with a client base that included manyof the FTSE companies, the original practicewas sold, and Mark moved to Wiltshire to workas a more traditional accountant.

The current practice is based in North Wiltshire,with 17 staff, most of whom are qualified in theirroles, and they provide the full range of servicesto their clients who come from almost everywalk of life.Mark’s primary role now is multi-faceted. He isstill an accounts and tax specialist, handlesbusiness purchases and sales and is also anexpert witness on quantum valuations.OUTLINETax is a cost like any other expense borne by abusiness. It needs to be planned, managed andcontrolled. This broad-based workshop will lookat reducing tax liabilities through careful costand structural management, compliance withthe latest regulations, maintaining records thatare capable of being relied upon, and what todo in the event of an enquiry by HMRC. Anymajor developments in the 2009 Budget willalso be discussed.

NOTES


24

Thank you for supporting the Society of Expert Witnessesand for attending our Spring Conference.

See you on 16 October 2009at Mottram Hall in Cheshire!

Society of Expert WitnessesPO Box 345Newmarket

SuffolkCB8 7TU

Tel: 0845 702 3014Fax: 01638 668656

E-mail: [email protected] site: http://www.sew.org.uk

http://www.sew.org.uk/

Documents

Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • · • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • Welcome • 2 Timetable for the day Friday