Civil Liability of Health Practitioners for their Forensic Work: Further Erosion of the Witness Immunity Rule Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13; [2011] 2 All ER 671, [2011] 2 WLR 823

摘要

There is a clear evolution in the law toward allowing experts to be made more accountable for the discharge of their forensic functions. A particular manifestation of this has been decisions such as General Medical Council v Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ 1390; [2007] 1 QB 462 holding experts amenable to disciplinary hearings for their forensic reports and also for the testimony that they give in court. However, until recently the witness immunity rule has wholly protected experts from being sued in negligence or defamation for their forensic work. The decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 has commenced to erode the rule, possibly laying the ground work for further erosion. However, such developments are unlikely to occur in Australia in the short to medium term, largely because of the High Court's retention of immunity for barristers, an advantage being that Australia will be able to assess the repercussions of the disincentives that may accrue in the United Kingdom to experts undertaking forensic functions.View full textDownload full textKey wordsbarristers, civil liability, defamation, disciplinary proceedings, expert witnesses, forensic reports, negligence, psychiatrists, psychologists, tort liabilityRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2012.717247