7 Tips for Finding the Right Psychiatric Expert

A Useful Starting Point

In R v Turner (1975) 60 Cr. App. R. 80, Lawton LJ stated:

The psychiatric expert witness is a witness who provides to the court a statement of opinion on any admissible matter calling for expertise by the witness and is qualified to give such an opinion. “An expert’s opinion is admissible to furnish the court with the scientific information which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury. If on the proven facts a judge or jury can form their own conclusions without help, then the opinion of an expert is unnecessary.” (R v Turner [1975] 1 All ER 70)

When instructing a psychiatric expert, it may be helpful to consider the following seven tips.

The 7 Tips

1) Do you need an expert?

If a bench or jury is going to be able to decide upon the case by listening to or viewing the evidence and bringing to bear their own senses, knowledge, and experience, then no expert is needed.

In my experience, it can be useful to have an initial conversation with the instructing professional to establish whether expert psychiatric evidence is likely to assist the court. If it is unlikely to be helpful, valuable time and money can be saved. For wider context on when psychiatric evidence is (and is not) likely to assist, see When Is a Psychiatric Report Necessary in Legal Proceedings?.

2) When is an expert an expert?

The psychiatrist claiming expertise must have acquired—by study or experience—sufficient knowledge of the relevant field to render their opinion of value.

It is very important that experts understand the dangers of taking instructions outside of an expert’s direct field of expertise. In Pool v GMC [2014] EWHC 3791 (Admin) the High Court held that doctors who hold themselves out to be experts in a particular field must ensure that they are sufficiently expert. Dr Pool had accepted instructions as an expert witness in proceedings before the Health Professions Council in relation to the fitness to practise of a paramedic with a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and a personality disorder. The paramedic objected to the evidence on the grounds that Dr Pool was not an expert. The High Court found that the Fitness to Practise Panel was not wrong in concluding that Dr Pool was not on the Specialist Register in the category of general psychiatry, had not completed any higher professional training, and that “his qualifications and experience did not equip him to be an expert”.

For a practical overview of what a psychiatrist can (and cannot) properly opine on, see Scope and Limits of Psychiatric Expert Evidence.

3) Is the expert independent?

The psychiatrist must be able to provide impartial, unbiased, objective evidence on the matters within their field of expertise; the expert is independent of the parties to the proceedings.

This can be of particular relevance when an expert report is sought from a treating psychiatrist (i.e. a psychiatrist who is treating the individual for whom a report is being sought). On some occasions, the preparation of an expert report by the treating psychiatrist can have an adverse impact on the therapeutic relationship with the individual, particularly where the individual disagrees with the conclusions of the psychiatrist.

Also, while prior acquaintance with the individual can be useful, the treating psychiatrist may not always have the necessary expertise in relation to medico-legal report preparation. For more on independence and the expert’s overriding duty, see The Psychiatrist’s Duty to the Court.

4) Is the evidence reliable?

As with other expert evidence, there should be a reliable scientific basis for the psychiatric evidence, or it must be part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience.

5) Are the findings and recommendations clear?

While many psychiatrists are excellent clinicians with extensive knowledge and experience, this does not always translate into a polished finished product.

It is therefore essential that the instructed expert psychiatrist is capable of conveying their findings and conclusions in a way that is easily understood by the layperson; reports must be balanced, robust, and logical. For common instruction issues that can undermine clarity or lead to rework, see Instructing a Psychiatric Expert: Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them.

6) Are the recommendations practical?

It is ideal if the instructed psychiatrist is aware of local services so that reports that make recommendations are of practical use. If the author is not the treatment provider, liaison with local services is vital to assure authorisation of a bed for hospital orders or other treatment provision in a community setting is available prior to making any recommendation.

It is important for instructing professionals to be aware that there are significant pressures on NHS hospital beds and that there can be delays in identifying an available and appropriate bed.

7) Can the expert deliver?

It is good practice to ensure agreement of deadlines and fees with the expert to avoid misunderstandings or problems at a later stage.

It is essential that the instructing professional confirms that the psychiatrist accepting instructions has enough time to do the work, and to do it thoroughly and to a good standard. Many experts have busy clinical commitments in addition to their medico-legal practice; it is therefore important that deadlines and expectations are clear. For example, if there is a need to attend court, the expert may need to rearrange clinical commitments.

Closing Note

Selecting the right psychiatric expert is rarely about credentials alone. The best evidence is independent, appropriately scoped, clearly reasoned, and presented in a way that assists the tribunal of fact.

This page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Procedural requirements vary by jurisdiction and case type, and solicitors should apply their own professional judgement to the circumstances of each instruction.