The High Court has issued a stern rebuke to an expert witness for failing to adhere to procedural rules and attempting to mislead the court.
In a significant ruling, Mr Justice Martin Spencer dismissed the testimony of a consultant psychologist, Dr Jacqueline Blyth, in a case involving allegations of abuse against a Hindu priest in Coventry. Dr Blyth’s reports were found to be deficient in both form and substance, as she ignored the mandates of the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly part 35, which governs expert evidence.
Dr Blyth, despite acknowledging her familiarity with the requirements, omitted several necessary declarations from her reports. In cross-examination, matters worsened when it emerged that she had plagiarised content from an American academic’s article on religious gurus, passing it off as her own analysis. This act was deemed by the court as deceptive and a severe breach of her duty as an expert witness.
The case took another turn when two claimants were dismissed due to their inability to speak or understand English, despite their witness statements being in the language. The fifth and sixth claimants, who are parents of a central figure in the case, required an interpreter and disclosed they could not read or write. This revelation led the judge to strike out their claims, describing the situation as a blatant disregard for court proceedings.
Justice Spencer speculated that the claimants’ involvement might have been mediated through their daughter, criticising the solicitor’s failure to ascertain their linguistic capabilities well before the trial. He expressed that such oversights should have been addressed during pre-trial reviews, labelling their emergence during cross-examination as “wholly unacceptable”.
Ultimately, all the claims in the trial were dismissed, underscoring the court’s insistence on integrity and accuracy in legal proceedings. The judgment serves as a warning to expert witnesses about the rigorous standards expected in their contributions to cases.
This ruling highlights the vital importance of adherence to procedural norms and the truthful presentation of evidence in court. The case serves as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners and expert witnesses alike.