Impact of Jones v Kaney Case on Forensic and Security Experts

Case Background
The plaintiff was Mr. Jones and the Respondent was Dr, Kaney. The plaintiff alleged
that the respondent was professionally negligent when she was acting as an expert in
litigation in which the plaintiff had been involved. The plaintiff argued that the joint
statement signed by the respondent after a meeting with other experts was damaging to his
claims and was not a clear reflection of the true view of the defendant. During the trial. The
judge didn’t have any other choice but to strike out the claim because the evidence
established that the expert witnesses were immune from the case (Hughes, 2011 pp 516-518).
Later, Supreme Court judges chose to eliminate expert immunity from the case. Advocates,
who like experts have the obligation towards the court and not to the client, had earlier lost
their immunity from the case, and there are no strong reasons for ensuring expert immunity.
Devaney, (2012) suggests that “it is important to establish a distinction between an
expert witness and ordinary witnesses” (p 176). While the latter is considered immune from
the case given the nature of the evidence, the former should be held responsible for
negligence given that they often act on a voluntary basis and are rewarded for the services
through charging fees. In the case of Jones v. Kaney, the court was on the view that the risk
of being sued won't prevent people from acting as experts, and that there was nothing that
would have suggested that the experts would alter their report. Moreover, the court was also
on the view that there would be a drastic increase in the aggravating claims against experts.
In 2011, the UK Supreme Court ruled that expert witness should not be granted civil
immunity from any act of negligence. This ruling had formed a strong foundation in the cases
of Jones v. Kaney and many other previous cases as it was regarded as a foundational
principle in the English law. However, the elimination of such highly regarded principle has
been criticised by many legal experts an expert is liable for the evidence they might
provide, which might deter most people from giving evidence altogether . Due to the case

of Jones v. Kaney, an expert witness are now considered vulnerable to actions of negligence
from his or her client particularly if the careless evidence causes a loss. Such decisions have
generated a range of discussions within both the professional and academic community with
much attentions directed towards the implication of such changes. Forrest, (2014) has
maintained that it would essentially transform the way expert witnesses execute their
responsibilities within the UK legal systems (p 136 ).Others have contended these positions
by looking at the decisions more favourably , arguing that it allowed for litigations to seek
remedy where it was earlier not available.
Expert Immunity
There are basically two categories of witnesses: a lay witness and an expert witness.
Lay witnesses are considered as random member of public who might have seen the
unfolding of a crime or the incidents that led to a crime. Such kind of witnesses has enjoyed
immunity from cases for what they say as witnesses. Expert witnesses, contrariwise, are
persons with experience and a better understanding of a certain topic in criminal law. They
are incorporated into most case proceedings to elaborate the systematic evidence and the
evidence they have established while in turn get financial payments for it. After the Jones v.
Kaney, judges often decide who can be considered an expert in a certain case, even though
this might be a matter to a legal notice from earlier court determinations to allow an expert to
provide their evidence (Cooper, 2012 p 234).Those generally called to attend to such
capacities include forensic scientists as it is a diverse field involving geneticists, chemists.
Biologists among others. Even though experts witness can be used to help the court in various
case hearings, forensic experts primarily help in criminal cases, as they often work together
with police force agencies and the criminal justice system.
The basis of maintaining witness immunity in Jones v. Kaney case was intended to
stop expert witnesses from being obstructed from appearing in court proceedings. And also

make certain that they feel confident to provide evidence in a trustworthy manner without the
fear of being prosecuted for the information they may provide. In regard to expert, claims of
negligence could in most cases cause a “chilling impact” in the supply of expert witness.
Gordon, (2012) argues that it is important to maintain immunity in order to ensure that
witnesses execute their obligations to the court of law and try avoiding any conflict of interest
between their general responsibility and their responsibility to the client (pp 165-170). As
fundamental as these factors might appear, the Supreme Court determined that the expert
witness does not have any immunity from being charged for negligence.
Its impact on forensics or security experts
It is imperative to note that the ruling by the Supreme Court did not insinuate the
laying of witnesses. They are still enjoying immunity from civil proceedings. The basis of
this continual immunity is for the reason that lay witnesses do not get any rewards for their
role as witnesses. Therefore, they still require protection to provide evidence in an honest
way. The ruling of the case was only applicable to expert witnesses and forensic experts since
they receive payments from their clients to perform their obligations in providing authentic
evidence (Bal, 2009 p383).
Forensic and security experts are now accountable for any work they conduct in a
criminal or civil case, whether written or oral where ,many can consider this as a constructive
development .Foundational evidence that is organized on behalf of client will be of a high
accuracy standards. This would, in turn, make the expert witness be more confident and
cautious with the suggestion they give as well as the evidence they provide to the court. The
high court decision could also discourage the involvement of unexperienced experts from
acting as expert witnesses. This would inspire more proficient experts to fill the gap.
Moreover, it would bring more experience to the role played by forensic experts, as most
experts have the necessary skills and knowledge to conduct their role. Every forensic expert