This is a fascinating case in terms of the expert’s qualifications, training and experience. As a result of the expert not setting these out in the report, and for other reasons, the judge could attach little or no weight to the expert’s opinions.

RC v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKFTT HU670752024 (IAC) 

Many medical experts from a variety of specialties, but in particular accident and emergency, may be called upon to advise the court as to the nature, extent and potential consequences of injuries suffered by the victims of crime. In this case the two accident and emergency experts provided reports which assisted the sentencing judge and were sufficiently detailed to assist the Court of Appeal when considering the submission by the Attorney general that the sentencing judge incorrectly categorised the level of harm resulting the stabbing of two men at an underground station. The case illustrates how medical experts should report on the injuries of the victims of crime and the information that the court requires in order to categorise the severity of their injuries. 

R v Green [2026] EWCA Crim 1003 

This case has important lessons for psychology and psychiatry expert witnesses and also for lawyers. It makes clear that, at least in the Asylum and Immigration Chamber, psychologists are expected to consider general practitioner records.

Typhopon v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004978

Laura Langley, 38, was alleged to have killed her seven-week-old daughter Edith who collapsed at the family home in Blackpool, Lancashire, in the early hours of 20 November 2020. The Judge found that the expert evidence in the case of Professor G, of Professor N and of Professor D each at times fell below the high standard expected of expert witnesses giving evidence before the family court in this jurisdiction. This judgment illustrates a number of important lessons for expert witnesses. The criticisms go well beyond a disagreement between experts—they concern the duties of an expert to the court. An expert who appears to defend a predetermined hypothesis rather than follow the evidence risks losing credibility entirely, regardless of their qualifications or experience. This judgment illustrates that methodological rigour, transparency, and impartiality are essential to persuasive expert testimony.

Having written in Hospital Update, 48 years ago, about routine parenteral thiamine alongside prophylaxis or treatment of alcohol withdrawal symptoms, I read this with great interest. It should be of interest to physicians and psychiatrists but what is striking are the lessons for all experts. There is a long section in which the judge is critical of some of the experts and their evidence.

Although the detail of this judgment is for diabetologists and gastroenterologists it is of general interest with regard to its treatment of statistical evidence, reliance on odds ratios and relative risk ratios and the position taken by the court on the relationship between the civil standard of proof and confidence intervals.

Alexander v HCA International Ltd [2026] EWHC 1284 (KB) 

After summarising the case law, the court in this case stated that there is a high threshold to be reached in order for ill health or physical disability to impinge upon the court's approach to assessing the appropriate method of sentencing an offender. This is not to say that ill health or disability will never be taken into consideration as is indicated by these terms: ‘not generally’, ‘not automatically’, ‘can take account’, ‘may enable’, ‘not in itself’, ‘it may be permissible’, ‘in appropriate cases’, ‘permissible to have regard’ and ‘purely on the basis’.

Lavery, R v (Sentencing Remarks) [2026] NICC 5

We have previously considered the problem for experts of redacted medical records. This, and the actual disclosure of medical, and also safeguarding, records is an issue in this ongoing personal injury case.

Although it illustrates the tests that the court will apply in deciding on disclosure of records, it also seems to illustrate the oft made point that a case turns on its own facts. In this case disclosure of records relating to a particular letter became unnecessary when it was established that the letter did not relate to the claimant. The relevance of the claimant’s mother’s immigration records arose out of the coincidence in time of a stage in her appeal process and a deterioration in the claimant’s condition.

RFV v Middleham [2026] EWHC 916 (KB) 

In these professional disciplinary proceedings it was considered highly unusual for an expert to act on behalf of a Registrant having also provided a character reference in support of the same Registrant.

Mew v General Dental Council [2026] EWHC 1116 (Admin) 

The importance of this case is that it confirms that medical practitioners providing evidence as to a patient’s fitness to participate in legal proceedings are providing expert evidence. It may be termed ‘professional’ evidence but it is expert evidence. It is expert evidence because the medical practitioner is assisting the court as to matters outside the knowledge and experience of the court. In this case the court depended on the applicant’s general practitioner to understand complex PTSD, spiking of blood pressure to dangerous levels and dysphonia and how they made the applicant unfit to participate in her appeal against the order made by the court as to the disposal of her son’s ashes.

Julie Karen Hoarean v Paul Anthony Read [2026] EWHC 763 (Ch)