Danger in deep water or just ripples in the pool: Has the Pool judgment changed the law on expert evidence?

Abstract

The professional regulatory cases of the psychiatrist Dr Richard Pool and the neuropathologist Dr Waney Squier have given rise to concerns among expert psychiatric witnesses, and indeed medical experts in general. Here we restate the law on expert evidence with particular reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kennedy v Cordia. We emphasise that Pool does not change the law regarding ‘what is expertise’; in particular, the case does not establish restrictive, status-based tests governing the admissibility of expert evidence such as according to whether an expert psychiatric witness has undergone higher training, is on the specialist register as a specialist in a particular field or is a consultant. Rather, expertise continues to be legally defined in terms of a combination of qualification, knowledge and experience. Crucially, the test of medical expertise in legal proceedings is a legal test and not one determined within a medical paradigm.