Tweet
Hi, if an 'expert witness' is still used who has knowingly acted as a Toxicologist in an earlier case in court (was written about in the press), who is confirmed in that previous court by a Judge in a large precedent setting, well documented group action as not qualified to act as a Toxicologist as they have no medical, biological or toxicological qualifications whatsoever, and no relevant experience either, and is therefore not qualified to give matters of opinion on matters of causation of any cancers or disease, if solicitors then still, despite knowing this, continue to accept his report from the defence, which then goes against the client, is this negligent towards their client that they are supposed to be acting to protect from that defence?
If also he turns out to NOT be what they professed to be on their CV on their legal written report i.e. NOT the 'Professor' employed by a University that they professed to be (confirmed by FOI replies) then is this perjury when they fail to admit it to a Judge who bizarrely later relies on his given status in court to justify their actions?
He did not meet any of the criteria laid out in Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules governing the use of Expert Witnesses to clarify.
If also he turns out to NOT be what they professed to be on their CV on their legal written report i.e. NOT the 'Professor' employed by a University that they professed to be (confirmed by FOI replies) then is this perjury when they fail to admit it to a Judge who bizarrely later relies on his given status in court to justify their actions?
He did not meet any of the criteria laid out in Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules governing the use of Expert Witnesses to clarify.
