Although the detail of McIntyre, R v [2026] NICC 2 will probably be of importance only for forensic science imagery analysts, it is important for experts in criminal cases in Northern Ireland, for forensic clinicians insofar as their activities fall within the remit of the Forensic Science Regulator, and it is of general interest as it illustrates the risks for experts instructed by the prosecution of not ensuring an appropriate distance from the investigating police officers.

This case, in the Court of Protection, concerned whether a wealthy, elderly man lacked capacity. The judgment dealt primarily with an application by respondents 2-7 to replace the jointly instructed expert with a new expert or, at the very least, permission for them to instruct their own expert.   

The judge did not find grounds to end the Single Joint Expert’s instruction but was satisfied that permitting respondents 2-7 to obtain a further report was appropriate in this particular case.

In straying from their original instructions, the expert developed an opinion without all the facts of the case and the second claimant was being coached through his cross-examination using smart glasses.

UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Limited & Ors Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC 543 (Ch)

The Secretary of State for the Home Office was appealing the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) to allow the Respondent’s appeal on Article 2 and 3 ECHR grounds against his deportation to Afghanistan. The Home Office did not seek to challenge the Respondent’s experts by requiring either of the experts to attend for cross-examination.

Tasib, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 139 (Admin) makes for interesting reading because it illustrates what information lawyers and courts need when deciding which expert to instruct and how they look at experts’ fees and expenses. The cheapest report will not be provided by the expert with the lowest hourly rate if they spend much longer on the case than more expensive experts. It makes a difference whether there is a charge for travelling expenses.

The dispute was between a former husband and wife, who were Russian nationals, about a post-nuptial agreement. The judge found that much of the expert evidence on Russian law was misdirected and misspent, and of limited use. He emphasised that both experts acted at times as surrogate advocates on behalf of their instructing parties.

The claimant was suing for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of assets used in its high-pressure aluminium diecasting business. The defendants’ expert received instructions that limited the scope of his investigation and analysis. While the judge accorded less weight to his evidence, he did not accept the claimant’s suggestion that the defendants’ expert ought to have either declined the instructions or proffered his opinion on wider valuation issues even in relation to issues outside of his instructions.

This case illustrates a number of difficulties for the adult victims of childhood sexual abuse. Diagnoses of psychiatric disorder in childhood have to be made retrospectively. Contemporaneous records may be missing, incomplete or insufficiently detailed. Even where the only adverse childhood experience is the sexual abuse, it is difficult to prove that the victim’s subsequent trajectory in life has been any different to what it would have been but for the sexual abuse.

DBAK v The Governors of the Fettes Trust [2026] CSOH 5

The claimant was involved in a minor road traffic accident while she was the passenger in a car driven by her partner, who was the defendant’s insured. She claimed compensation for whiplash and psychological symptoms. The judge described the report of the physiotherapist expert witness who acted for the claimant as almost worse than useless and aspects of her evidence as literally unbelievable

Clark v Skyfire Insurance Company Limited, Canterbury County Court, 12th November 2025 

The expert acting for the appellant had appeared before the Valuation Tribunal for England as advocate and expert for the appellant, and he continued to represent the appellant in its appeal before the Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) until counsel was instructed close to the date of the hearing. The Tribunal noted that experts in these circumstances must take particular care to acknowledge their position and explain how compliance with the duties of an expert has been achieved.

Espresso Rooms UK Limited v Nicola Johnson [2026] UKUT 70 (LC)