Search results

In January 2013, new court procedure rules were introduced in England and Wales, which resulted in significant changes to the instruction of expert witness psychologists (EWPsychs). This study aims to build on the results of previous survey studies of psychologists working as expert witnesses in identifying the current challenges faced by EWPsychs.

Using a mixed-methods design, a sample 58 practicing psychologist expert witnesses were surveyed, and qualitative data was analysed using a thematic analysis approach.

Six overarching themes emerged from the online survey data: training and knowledge, changes to procedure rules and Legal Aid Authority fees, quality of reports, pressures to change opinion, conflict with EWPsychs and expert witness feedback. Over a third of psychologists working as expert witness have not received specific expert witness training, with a quarter of respondents indicating that the capped legal aid fees are a determining factor in whether they accept instruction as an expert witness, and almost two-third of respondents believing that the legal aid rates do not accurately reflect the work that they do.

There is clear demand for high-quality EWPsychs and a need to develop expert witness training programmes and guidance documents to better support the next generation of EWPsychs.

These results inform existing policy, clinical practice and guidance documents in supporting psychologists working as expert witnesses.

The role of evidence-based psychological knowledge in cases of juvenile offending is essential to make appropriate decisions relating to youth who violate legal or social norms, as it carries implications for treatment, intervention and practice. Psychological expert opinions therefore need to meet high formal and methodological requirements while maintaining ethical standards. The purpose of this study is to investigate psychological expert opinions in cases of juvenile misbehavior reported to regional courts in Poland. Juvenile court proceedings concern cases of demoralization and/or delinquent offenses. Demoralization is a legal concept described in the Act of June 9, 2022 on juvenile support and resocialization. This concept was not defined; it was only described through examples of behaviors indicating demoralization. These include the following: violations of the principles of community life; evading compulsory education or schooling; use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their precursors, substitutes or new psychoactive substances; and prostitution.

To reach these goals, court records of juvenile cases in six district courts (N = 253) were gathered and analyzed. A semistructured questionnaire was used to examine the cases in which psychologists were appointed and to analyze the procedures used by these experts for assessing adolescents and their families.

Findings revealed that family judges appoint psychologists both in cases of “demoralization” (i.e. status offenses) and in cases of juvenile delinquency. The opinions were delivered by psychologists who were mostly members of diagnostic teams. Results indicate that such opinions generally comply with the minimal standards recommended by the Ministry of Justice, yet a few problems were observed with the determination of levels of demoralization.

The limitations of diagnostic tools used by psychologists are discussed, and recommendations for future practice are provided.

Fraudulently claiming symptoms of mental disorder can be very lucrative for those in society who are willing to do so. One context that lends itself well to those willing to fraudulently claim symptoms of mental disorder is the road traffic accident. Previous research has indicated that the assessment practices of those charged with investigating psychological damages in the UK are not suitable in terms of detecting malingering. The purpose of this paper is to provide a “practitioner ready review” that outlines the structured psychometric assessment tools that are recommended and validated by academic research for aiding with the detection of feigned mental disorder.

The paper takes a primarily conceptual approach utilising a narrative literature review which is aimed at the forensic practitioner who conducts assessments for psychological damages in contexts where malingering may be of concern.

The findings of the present paper will be of use not only to forensic practitioners, but also will be of interest to those who instruct assessments in similar contexts, those who conduct research within this area and those who interpret reports written by forensic practitioners such as the courts.

To the author’s knowledge the present paper is the first of its kind, which attempts to bridge the gap between academic literature and professional practice to assist forensic examiners incorporate suitable psychometric instruments within their practice. As a result, the paper makes a substantial contribution to the improvement of forensic reporting in the disciplines of psychology and psychiatry.

In this article, I examine the role of judicial narratives in constructing, constraining, and delimiting the boundaries of social scientific and expert knowledge – specifically, in the context of gay and lesbian parents’ custody and adoption cases. Examining not only the judicial narratives in appellate cases over the last fifty years in the United States, but also expert reports and briefs obtained from attorneys in these cases and interviews with judges, attorneys and litigants, I investigate the role of judicial narratives in adjudicating between competing social scientific claims about sexuality and child welfare, constructing expertise, and ultimately deciding what is valid knowledge and what is not. I focus specifically on the ways in which judges credit and discredit social scientific evidence, experts, and knowledge claims. The power of legal actors and particularly judges to police the boundaries of knowledge and expertise in the context of the custody case and the judicial narrative is complicated by the observation that this form of social scientific knowledge is not only the object acted upon and shaped by these power dynamics, but is also itself a source of power and legitimation.

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the current competencies and training needs for being an expert witness of trainees (CT3, ST4-6) and career grade psychiatrists (consultants and staff grade, associate specialist and specialty doctors) in a UK health and well-being Trust.

This was completed through an online survey, developed by the authors, of all career grade and trainee psychiatrists within the Trust.

Only 9 per cent of respondents reported that they felt they had adequate training to feel competent as an expert witness. Despite low levels of training and confidence, 73 per cent of respondents had written an expert report. As well as shortage of training opportunities for psychiatrics acting as expert witnesses, the findings indicated increasing fear of litigation and lack of direct experience of court proceedings during training.

Doctors need to be offered formal training opportunities including simulated training, ideally organised within Trust, Continuing Professional Development (CPD) committees or Education committees. Implementation of the RCPsych report guidance into speciality curricula and CPD opportunities for doctors would ensure a robust curriculum-based delivery of these essential skills.

A wealth of guidance is available for expert witnesses, but no previous study had identified the specific training issues and overall confidence in competency to act as an expert witness amongst psychiatrists. It will be valuable to all psychiatrists involved in court work and organisations involved in training psychiatrists, especially in light of recent relevant court cases and removal of expert witness immunity.