Expert-witness instruction and fee disclosure — transparency gaps
The prosecution’s claim: Expert witnesses for the Crown were instructed under the standard CPS framework and their evidence was adduced as independent expert opinion.
Prosecution claim
Expert witnesses for the Crown were instructed under the standard CPS framework and their evidence was adduced as independent expert opinion.
Counter-evidence
Independent commentary on expert-witness instruction and fees in this case has identified transparency gaps relative to the standards now expected for forensic experts. Public commentators including Dr Phil Hammond (Private Eye), Mark McDonald and others have raised questions about instruction terms, fees received, scope of opinion and the absence of contemporaneous peer review of opinions formed for criminal proceedings. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health's March 2026 updated guidance addresses several of these concerns prospectively, including conflict-of-interest disclosure where the same expert advises both clinical investigation and prosecution.
Key point: Forensic expert evidence in life-and-liberty proceedings should be subject to disclosure standards at least as rigorous as those expected of pharmaceutical research. The instruction-and-fee record in this case has not met that bar.
What the jury heard
Expert witnesses were presented as independent. Instruction terms, fees and scope-of-opinion gating were not foregrounded for jury assessment of expert weight.
What the Panel says
The Panel does not opine on UK procedural rules but its constitution — fourteen international neonatologists with no instruction or fee from any party in the case — was designed precisely to provide a contrast standard.
What independent experts add
- Criminal procedure rules require expert witnesses to disclose anything capable of undermining their credibility or impartiality (see the March 2026 Guardian reporting on Prof. Hindmarsh).
- The Law Commission's 2011 expert-evidence proposals — not implemented by government — would have addressed several of these gaps.