Viewpoints

Professional witnesses play a vital role in the administration of justice. They offer acknowledged expertise in their particular discipline to supplement and illuminate the deliberations of counsel, solicitors and judges. 

They operate under strict obligations and responsibilities to ensure the strictest impartiality, defer to the authority of the courts and provide a service which would be impossible to replicate in any other way. 

It might be expected, therefore, that their unique insights, and depth and breadth of experience, would be highly valued and respected. This, I am afraid to say, is very much not the case. 

In reality professional witnesses, unlike “expert witnesses” who are treated far more courteously, are often cited – that is, ordered – to appear at very short notice, given no indication of what time of day they might be required, and expected to sit in a waiting room from the start of proceedings until summoned. 

Apart from a fixed fee, there is no recompense for loss of earnings, disruption to practice or other detriment. Invoices sent are routinely ignored. 

What is particularly dispiriting for people who are putting themselves at the courts’ disposal is the total lack of information once cited – for instance, they might find after travelling to Inverness Sheriff Court that the case had gone off before they arrived. 

Inevitably, they are left with the sour feeling that they are well down the list when it comes to any kind of professional courtesy. 

Our medical director was co-opted during lockdown to the Scottish police, to act as a forensic consultant in cases of extreme criminal violence. Cases on which he reported are still coming to trial, and he is required at sometimes untenably short notice to prepare for a court appearance, speak to solicitors, speak about his reports and be cross-examined. 

As an example, he recently was cited on a Saturday to be in Glasgow Sheriff Court on the Tuesday. He phoned in the morning to find out what was happening and, bizarrely, was put on to a cashier who, understandably, could not help. He was assured he would be informed in good time, but went to the court in person only to be told – by someone in the waiting room – that a guilty plea had been entered. 

This is not unusual. He had asked to be put on a two-hour standby, or to offer his evidence by Zoom. But most courts still refuse to allow remote evidence, despite the Lord President saying of virtual courts at the start of lockdown that “we have to seize… the opportunity to respond to the particular challenge”. 

I fully appreciate that the courts are wilting under the backlog of cases. I know that Glasgow is said to be the busiest court in Europe. I am aware that court staff perform stoically and cheerfully despite the pressures they are under. 

But it’s difficult not to feel that nobody in the system is talking to anyone else and that simple courtesies such as letting people know they are no longer required are being forgotten. 

We really have to bring this situation into the digital age, with allowing remote submissions as the obvious first step. Surely current tech can also make it possible for a court official to press a single button to alert everyone cited that they are no longer required. 

It’s quite archaic to expect professionals to sit twiddling their iPhones in a court waiting room for days at a time. It has to end. 

Jonathan Toye, co-founder and managing director, Ever Clinic