Sean Mosby / 01 February 2024 / Categories: Case Updates An expert who oversteps their role puts their evidence at risk The Case The Claimant was appealing, and seeking permission to judicially review, a decision by the Gender Recognition Panels (GRP) not to issue a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) which states that the Claimant’s gender is non-binary. The Claimant, an American citizen residing in the UK, had had their gender recognised as non-binary under the law of the State of California. The Court granted permission for the Claimant to rely on a report prepared by Dr H Eli Joubert, a consultant clinical psychologist, as evidence of the adverse impact that the Claimant had experienced. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login Print 710 Tags: Clinical psychologyDuty of ExpertDuty to the courtJudicial critismEuropean Convention on Human RightsHumans Rights Act 1998Gender Recognition Act 2004 More links Link to the Judgment Related articles R v Valdo Calocane, The Crown Court at Nottingham, 25 January 2024, unreported Jagger (& others) -v- Axa Insurance PLC Expert witnesses must not act as advocates for the party instructing them Experts making the evidence fit their own conclusions do not meet their duty to the Court Claimant has turned into Litigant in person – do I have to attend court and how do I ensure I get paid? Comments are only visible to subscribers.