Expert evidence ruled inadmissible in relocation case

Lots to mull over in a lengthy judgment of Sheriff Anwar in JQ v CC, Glasgow Sheriff Court, 1 March 2016. The defender's specific issue order to relocate with the two children of the relationship to Exeter was refused, but it is perhaps the sheriff's comments on the use of expert child psychologists which are most noteworthy.

Applying the tests in the recent UK Supreme Court decision Kennedy v Cordia Services LLP [2016] UKSC 6 (10 February 2016), the sheriff ruled inadmissible the evidence of two experts who purported to weigh up the psychological impact on the children, neither of whom was said to be suffering from any underlying psychological issue which required the input of a child psychologist. Their evidence failed the first and fourth tests of admissibility in Kennedy: it did not assist the court in its task, and there was no reliable body of knowledge or experience to underpin the evidence.

Both experts were doing what the court was entrusted with doing – analysing all the relevant risks and benefits – and were purporting to do so without the advantage of seeing and hearing all parties giving evidence and being cross examined thereon.

Click here to view the judgment.