A considerable number of years ago I began to be asked to provide “expert witness” reports in relation to a number of court cases. Having agreed to do this I not only (and obviously) chose to read all that I could find on how best to do this; I also read information available to lawyers about how they should “deal with” expert witnesses, so as to prepare myself for dealing with lawyers (who can be demanding, sometimes arrogant, people).

Subsequent to the publication in 1992 by the government in England and Wales of the “Memorandum of Good Practice on Video Recorded Interviews with Child Witnesses for Criminal Proceedings” (that I and a law professor were commissioned to draft), I have been asked on numerous occasions to provide an “expert” report on how well (alleged) child victims/witnesses were interviewed (these having been routinely video-recorded since 1992 and often used as evidence-in-chief).

When asked to provide such reports (and indeed on related topics such as the interviewing of suspects, routinely audiotaped in England and Wales since 1986), I have always insisted that I will not discuss with the retaining lawyers (or any other lawyers) the contents of my report until after I have sent the report in writing to them. Once the report is in, I am willing to change some of my wording only for the purposes of clarity, but I am not willing to change my comments/conclusions/advice. The relevant books for lawyers that I had read (and my discussions with some other “expert” psychologists) had forewarned me of some of the ethical issues that might arise if lawyers try to inl uence unduly the content of my “expert” reports (and any of my subsequent testimony).