Layout 2 - University of Central Lancashire

Research defines new
standards for expert witnesses
Pioneering analysis evaluates psychological expert witnesses
and quality of their reports in the family courts.
The quality of psychological experts and their
reports, presented at family court proceedings in
the UK, show notable inconsistencies according
to ground-breaking research carried out by
Professor Jane Ireland and her research team
based within UCLan’s School of Psychology.
Evaluating Expert Witness Psychological Reports:
Exploring Quality, was part-funded by the Family
Justice Council as part of its commitment to
expert witness work and the continued review of
standards across all expert witnesses.
Results of the study, the first systematic quality
evaluation of expert evidence of this nature,
indicate wide variability in report quality.
The study examined 126 expert psychological
reports submitted in family court proceedings from
180 court bundles across three UK courts. Court
proceedings took place between 2009 and 2011
and covered both adult and child assessments.
Using four experts (three forensic psychologists
and one clinical psychologist), the study evaluated
the quality of court reports using criteria relating
to the stated qualifications of the psychologists
providing expert reports and applying a
framework of quality measures drawn from
established criteria.
Key findings from Professor Ireland’s analysis
exposed a wide variability in report quality with
two-thirds of the reports reviewed being rated as
‘below the expected standard’, with one-third
between ‘good or excellent’.
Evaluated on the basis of their submitted
curriculum vitae, 20 percent of instructed
psychologists were inadequately qualified for
the role while 90 percent maintained no clinical
practice external to the provision of expert
witness work.
The reports rated as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ were
characterised by a number of factors including:
use of graduate or assistant psychologists to
compile case background and in some cases to
interview parents, overuse of psychometrics and
absence of support for opinion, while some made
uninformed psychological statements.
Professor Ireland, a Chartered and Forensic
Psychologist, said: “The crucial decisions made
by family courts on issues such as the custody of
children, domestic violence and sexual violence
have life-changing consequences.
“The reports produced by psychological experts
can play an influential role in a judge’s final
decision and yet, until now, research to assess the
quality of these reports has not been conducted.
“Although there are some unavoidable limitations
in a study of this nature, such as sample size,
we were concerned about the limited stated
qualifications and current clinical experience of
some of the experts commissioned to provide
16