Impact of Jones v Kaney Case on Forensic and Security Experts

This article discusses the impact of the Jones v Kaney case on forensic and security experts, including the loss of immunity, accountability, and implications for criminal proceedings.

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

participating in a court proceeding or providing evidence for a client is now required to have
expert indemnity coverage in order to safeguard themselves against lawsuits from their
clients. Earlier, before the Jones v. Kaney case, this was not a fundamental requirement,
because expert witnesses were immune from suits. Moreover, Forensic experts who did have
indemnity cover could see the budget for cover increasing because of the ruling. A potentially
negative aspect of Jones v. Kaney, the ruling is the national difference.
While the rule is applicable in Wales and England, it is still not applicable in Scotland
which still retains immunity in both criminal and civil hearings. This has resulted in
inconsistencies on the level of immunity that ought to be granted to the witnesses in various
parts of the United Kingdom. Moreover, such inconsistencies would see cases of similar
nature getting dissimilar judgements particularly where the plaintiff is attempting to take
legal action against their expert (Brian, & Cruickshank, 2017 p 160-172). More significantly,
it could result in more expert witnesses choosing to give evidence for Scottish clients rather
than clients in Wales and England. The ruling also made most expert witnesses more
reluctant to provide their evidence in court for fear of later being sued for testifying and
giving evidence that would later be considered inaccurate.
Earlier prior to the Jones v. Kaney case, there were multiple injustices in criminal
proceedings where evidence provided by expert witnesses often resulted in the prosecution
and sentencing of innocent persons. One good instance is the ‘Birmingham Six’ where six
individuals were charged and prosecuted in 1974 for allegedly bombing two clubs in
Birmingham. They received life sentences, and spend seventeen years behind bars before it
was discovered that they were not guilty in 1991 (Forrest, 2014). The judges determined that
the forensic expert in the case, Dr. Skuse might have altered the sample because his own
hands were confirmed positive of explosive materials and didn’t consider other possibilities
for the positive tests that were discovered from his hand. The source of the chemicals in his

hands could have also come from holding items with nitrile elements, often used in making
soaps that he used to clean the bowl that were being used in the test (Heilbrun,& Brooks,
2010 pp 219). Since there are multiple substances that can give such positive outcomes, this
made the forensic expert inattentive of his obligations for not putting into consideration any
other possible sources of the chemicals found in his hands (Shaw, 2011 pp 368-379).
Another classic case is often known as the Maguire Seven. In this cases, the forensic
data was grounded on nitro-glycerine that was found in the hands of the defendant .However,
their prosecution was based solely on this evidence, without even considering the possibility
of getting such chemicals from other sources. The judges later overruled the sentencing and
the professionals could not be sentenced for their carelessness (Wall, 2009). If the ruling in
the case of Jones v Kaney decision had been executed back then, the expert witnesses in these
two cases could have been indicted for being careless or for their lack of integrity and
transparency in regards to the outcomes of the tests and the methods applied to carry out the
evidence, as they were potentially interfered with and flawed. Nevertheless, since the law has
now been reformed for civil hearing, it could take some time prior to such reforms are
acknowledged for criminal proceedings (Rennie, 2012 pp 150).
Loss of corrective immunity from professional organizations
The immunity of expert witnesses has gradually remained on the decline in the past
few years. For instance, in the case General Medical Council v Meadow, The judges
indicated that an expert witness is subject to disciplinary actions taken by their own
governing body for negligence rising from their responsibilities as expert witnesses (Gordon,
2012 pp 170-179). In this occasion, Professor Meadow had delivered evidence against Sally
Clark, a lady who was indicted and later prosecuted for the murder of her two children.
Nevertheless, the jury later realised that the evidence provided by Mr. Meadow had flaws,

and the methods he used to support his analysis for the conviction were inaccurate. The father
to the accused lodged a case of serious negligence against Mr. Meadow before the General
Medical Committee (GMC) (Matson, 2012).This medical committee had the authority of
issuing warnings, suspending or even delete the profile of a practitioner from their registry, if
they were considered unfit to practice medicine. After carrying out fitness proceedings, Mr.
Meadov was removed from the GMC register. He later appealed against his removal and
won. The council further appealed the case, but the court determined that, although the
quality Standards Meadow applied were short of the requirement set by the council, his
actions didn’t amount to serious professional misconduct and thus right to reinstate
him .However, the court never clarified whether Mr. Meadov could be subjected to other
disciplinary actions by the professional body if necessary. Consequently, the ruling in Jones v
Kaney case is a reflection for a remedy to the wrong, which was experienced in the cases of
Meadow v General Medical Council. To some extent, the case influenced the verdict made by
other Courts. If expert witnesses no longer enjoyed immunity from penal hearings, it might
have appeared rational to the Supreme Court to eliminate it for the civil hearings altogether
(Case, 2016. 360-370).
Conclusion
It is undoubtedly that the ruling in the Jones v Kaney case shook the foundation of the
law which has been in application for many decades. It is now more than five years ever since
the supreme court made a judgement on the Jones v Kaney case, the impact of the judgement
in the forensic and the larger faction of witness is still yet to be accomplished .Of the specific
importance is the idea of whether the forfeiture of immunity is related to the work of expert
witnesses during criminal proceedings. This paper has critically analysed the Jones v Kaney
case and the impact it has on the forensic society and the entire expert witness community.

Bibliography
Books and Articles
Bal, B. S. 2009. The expert witness in medical malpractice litigation. Clinical orthopaedics
and related research, 467(2), 383:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11999-008-0634-
4
Brian, D., & Cruickshank, A. 2017. Police officers giving evidence: Discussing gaps,
contradictions and next steps. The Police Journal, 90(2), 160-
172.:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0032258X16674022
Case, P. 2016. Dangerous liaisons? Psychiatry and law in the Court of Protection—Expert
discourses of ‘insight’(and ‘compliance’). Medical law review, 24(3), 360-378. :
https://academic.oup.com/medlaw/article-abstract/24/3/360/2733266
Cooper, P. 2012. Jones v Kaney and Other Disincentives: Why the Supreme Court's Decision
Should Prompt a Law Commission Review of the Law in Relation to Expert Witness
Evidence in Family Cases. Child & Fam. LQ, 24,
234. :https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/
chilflq24&section=20
Devaney, S. 2012. BALANCING DUTIES TO THE COURT AND CLIENT: THE
REMOVAL OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OF EXPERT WITNESSES: JONES V KANEY
[2011] UKSC 13. Medical law review, 20(3), 450-
459. :https://academic.oup.com/medlaw/article-abstract/20/3/450/957799
Forrest, A. 2014. Jones v Kaney: the removal of expert witness immunity and its potential
impact on forensic scientists. Diffusion-The Clan Journal of Undergraduate
Research, 7(1). :http://bcur.org/journals/index.php/Diffusion/article/view/62

Gordon, G. 2012. Immunity wearing off: Jones v Kaney in the Supreme Court. Edinburgh L.
Rev., 16, 238 :https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/
edinlr16&section=23
Hughes, K. 2011. The abolition of expert witness immunity. The Cambridge Law
Journal, 70(3), 516-518 :
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-law-journal/article/abolition-of-expert-
witness-immunity/F38ED9B6D4FDE8FE164259150B2E336D
Heilbrun, K., & Brooks, S. 2010. Forensic psychology and forensic science: A proposed
agenda for the next decade. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(3),
219. :https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/law/16/3/219.html?uid=2010-15316-001
Matson, J. V. 2012. Effective expert witnessing: practices for the 21st century. CRC
Press. :https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781439887691
Rennie, R. 2012. The end of immunity for expert witnesses. Scots Law
Gazette, 37. :http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/67094/
Shaw, K. 2011. Expert evidence reliability; Time to grasp the nettle. The Journal of Criminal
Law, 75(5), 368-379: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1350/jcla.2011.75.5.726
Wall, W. 2009. Forensic science in court: the role of the expert witness. John Wiley &
Sons. :https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=1JMlNOaE4fUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Wall,+W.
+2009.+Forensic+science+in+court:+the+role+of+the+expert+witness.+John+Wiley+
%26+Sons.&ots=8q9R9JbTWP&sig=X3YogAj3vR__tTbGU31tAlXlCyM
Cases
Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 retrieved from: http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-jones-v-
kaney-2011-uksc-13/

Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWHC 146 (Admin) Retrieved from:
https://swarb.co.uk/meadow-v-general-medical-council-admn-17-feb-2006/.
General Medical Council v Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ1390: Retrieved from:
https://www.casecheck.co.uk/general-medical-council-v-meadow-2006-ewca-civ-1390-26-
october-2006.html.