Is it not about time that experts, whom are paid handsomely, are made accountable for their actions? There is a saying, " doctors can bury their mistakes. " Reading elsewhere on the web, I draw conclusion that this woman could have the power to section someone. How frightening.

Whether experts may or may not be well paid for their work, this case does not alter the fact that they are already accountable for their actions. There has been no evidence of negligence by the expert here as the Courts have so far said that the immunity remains in place and no evidence has been presented. It is the courts who currently offer expert witness immunity; should the current situation be changed in the future by the Supreme Court, who is going to be willing to appear as an expert witness in court proceedings if they are then sued by the party on whose behalf they have given evidence? It is essential that witnesses are able to give their evidence to the Courts without favour, or fear of the consequences If this case goes forward, then it will be for Jones to show that Kaney was negligent. Provided the evidence Kaney gave was reasonable, there will have been no negligence on her part.

As to Missanon's comment on sectioning someone, it has no relevance. What was her point supposed to be?

As is often the case, both previous commentators have valid points. The problem is how to make experts accountable for giving misleading evidence, whilst protecting them from frivolous or retributive litigation, simply because an injured party does not approve of their evidence for personal reasons.

We have a case in point - a psychiatrist giving evidence for the Defendant has deliberately misquoted and left out salient entries in medical records to give a misleading analysis of the Claimant's psychiatric history. In doing so, he has reversed his own earlier report and diagnosis and discredited his instrument for evaluating PTSD. The Court can impose cost sanctions against the Defendant and even exclude the evidence and the expert, but this still comes at a cost to the Claimant. Whilst the Court can even impose a "wasted costs" order, it does not compensate the true victim of the improper evidence, the Claimant in this case. False evidence is not easy to exclude because those evaluating it are human and their reading of evidence is necessarily influenced by whatever is put before them. The impartiality of the judge(s) is unavoidably compromised to some extent.

So, Kaney may have been negligent. In our case, a psychiatrist has discredited his own instrument, and therefore also his own expertise (he did not question his findings made in a two hour assessment), but can still practice as a psychiatrist. And yes, he can section people. The point is that it is debatable whether someone who can be found guilty of giving inappropriate evidence in Court should be allowed to use the same judgement in affecting a patient's future so drastically. The monitoring process for carrying out such judgement calls in practice is far less stringent than that for presenting it to a Court.

My question relates to professional discipline consequences for an expert who has prepared an incorrect technical report. The expert witness may have immunity for what is said in the witness box but do they have immunity from professional discipline for the incorrect report.

For the record, I am not a lawyer.