A very good piece of advice I heard many years ago was: Everybody should become an expert at something. For then they will realize how little, other experts really know.
Al says below that no prep and natural is part of the channel trademark. I think its part of his disarming the opponent! Personally, I often leave my Zip undone as a display of self confidence!😄
My late uncle was an ex-Shell toxicologist at a consultancy based at the University of Guildford who worked with many barristers as an expert witness. He was very good at explaining the concept of 'risk'.
In relation to Jenkins been having a very stimulating debate on whether he was an “expert witness” (facts and opinion) as defined in the rules, or simply a witness with expertise in the Horizon system ( facts only). I contend that if he was an expert witness he should have been guided and trained to include all the necessary text in his statements, and I am surprised none of the investigators or prosecution lawyers ensured that he did so. He was a “techie” left to his own devices and done up like a kipper by his and PO management.
I instructed experts in proceedings in the Patents Court and in litigation in other jurisdictions. I am astonished that the courts (and defence lawyers) never challenged POL on Gareth Jenkins' position. It seems absolutely obvious that he could only be a fact expert - "this is the way that Horizon works". If you asked him his opinion on whether there were better ways of doing it, the almost inevitable (on the face of it, at least) answer is "no, this is the best way I can think of doing it" (because that's the way he did it!). It is so absurd that it still blows my mind when I think about it. To that extent, it is a failure of the legal system, not Jenkins', although his evidence before the Inquiry shows that he shoulders plenty of responsibilty nonetheless.
I love it when a Judge doesn’t agree/ accept the experts evidence it sends the benches shuffling about. My favourite was a witness saying he didn’t agree with the sniffer dog 😆
I remember being an expert witness in a Building Bar case. The expert for the other side, when asked why he was an expert, stated that he had been a Professional Quantity Surveyor for 20 years. The Judge, perhaps pulling his leg, said "there are only three professions available for men, the Bar, the Church or the Army; for women there are other options".
What if any methods are there to stop experts going into areas they are not experts in? I am thinking about Professor Meadow where it was clear from the media reports at the time he had no understanding of statistics. Does the blame go to the defence team who must have been similarly mathematically inept to have not torn him apart at the time?
Having served as an expert witness in an exceptionally narrow field, it was fun that the only other possible expert witnesses from the UK were my colleagues in my team. Needless to say, they weren't called for rebuttal 🤣
Can I be an expert witness in police corruption by having a S Yorks postcode and entry on to a list of vexatious litigants c/o post office solicitor Mandy Talbot in 2003 ?
Like any witness in a civl case, they can sit in. Although oftentimes they won't actually attend the trial. The idea being you do all the questions beforehand and they just submit a statement and a report. They can also usually listen to the other expert in a criminal trial.
@@artmedialawmedicine and veganism are a tricky one. ideally of course we'd move away from all animal products in medicine. I have to take some medicine that contains gelatine and lactose, so I balance it out best I can by writing to the companies to ask them to switch to vegan alternatives.
Ask not for whom the Bell tolls! Good afternoon to you. Lovely to listen to you again and on a topic I find important. The detail was attention grabbing also. And the type of surroundings I have come to expect from you. Thank you. 😊
Your mention of hot-tubbing conjured up an interesting mental picture. Do those involved keep their wigs on, or would the steam affect the curls?! 'Hope you enjoyed the talk, btw!
Great Church! In Australia my experience in planning cases that the experts conference (not hot tubbing) to sort out matters on which they agree on and matters that are contentions. Usually coffee and nice cakes are involved. Then a joint report is prepared by the experts. This helps everyone focus on the important issues rather than having to wade through pages of reports. I do feel sorry for Jenkins and his lawyer made some excellent points about his instructing solicitors responsibility in making sure he understood the expert witness rules and duties. I would have thought that there was an inherent conflict of interest in having him and an expert.
In the past I have been regarded as an 'expert witness'. In this I was an independent witness. Based on my skills and technological knowledge I was able to voice an opinion as you suggest. Can you explain to me how the legal fraternity suggested that Mr Jenkins achieved these criteria? How did a judge accept a person employed by an interested party meet the requirements of an 'expert witness'? Come on, call it for what it is 🙂
Well, only an employee of Fujitsu could be sufficiently knowledgeable about Horizon to be an expert on it but such a person cannot be considered independent so what do you do?
@@petehiggins33 No, you miss the point entirely. An expert witness would be somebody of sufficient programming /systems skills and knowledge to give opinion about the Futjitsu system. For example, a meteorological expert witness can provide evidence on weather matters without being an employee of the UK Met Office.The court and the legal people have totally misrepresented the role of Jenkins.
@@Swaggerlot True but that is not what was required here. The court needed to know what bugs there were in Horizon and whether or not they could be responsible for the losses. A general computer expert could not know this, only someone who was actually involved in the Horizon software could.
@@petehiggins33 Therefore you are talking about the general disclosure requirements of the POL prosecutors and supporting legal people. My observation throughout is that the only people that should be hung out to dry in this debacle are those with legal professional status, including the judges involved. The entire legal system should be investigated.
There are lots of professional experts - Dr Worden, I believe, gave expert evidence for POL in the Horizon Issues (possibly also the Common Issues) trial, and was also an expert in proceedings where I instructed our clients' expert against him. The problem of having such a "professional expert", we found, was that they cam across as being a hired gun: even though they were obviously competent, they might not quite have the expertise that goes to the heart of a case. I think that showed in Mr Justice Fraser's assessment against the SPMs' expert, whose evidence Fraser J preferred. In our case, the judge also preferred our expert to Dr Worden.
The rule is that anything that goes into the trial bundle without objection is deemed to be accepted as authentic. So if for example you wanted to challenge the veracity of an exhibit then you would have to make that clear. But generally people can put in what they want. Although it should be clear just from the statements etc why something is going in.
Possibly the most likeable vegan on earth! The issue with that paper is that not everyone will know it’s good for the environment and may think it’s litter. My question is what about biased experts - what happens to them if they have found to be biased? Also has an expert ever been found to have prior knowledge of a defendant and the issues behind that. Enjoy your trip!
Experts make sure they get paid up front! But they still have to be independent regardless of who is paying them. There are a number of judgements where experts have been roundly criticised for being partisan. The usual remedy in such situations is to disregard the expert's testimony.
If you do your job as solicitors properly, you'll have interviewed a half dozen potential experts to pick the one (1) whose views align with your client's case; (2) who has the right expertise (no good getting an expert on coding practices who has only coded in Python and C rather than C# if your case hinges on C# code); and (3) who articulates his knowledge and opinions well.
Odd how, in many examples of experts, the expert accountant is never mentioned. In civil cases where quantum of damages generally needs to be assessed, without the expert accountant very little if anything will be achieved. In my opinion of course.
My approach to vids, and life in general, is, no preparation, one take. If you ever do see any edits that's just because the camera has a habit of turning itself off. I've decided that's the channel brand, and not just me being lazy.
Its all so arbitrary. The US seems streets ahead of us on expert witnesses. A CAFCAS speaker in my case was beyond incompetent. Cafcas themselves admit that PAS parental alienation syndrome is factor in 80% of family court cases. But UK courts just don't have any experts to recall. The americans lead on this. But its also studied and known throughout Europe. An expert called Dr Richard Gardener. Wrote the papers on it. Our family courts do imeasurable harms with their archaic procedures. Whats the point of expert witnesses when a judge can default to 'balance of probabilities '. 😂 Might as well throw a dice before the procedure and save people a fortune.
And always consult with your briefs before giving answers 👍🏽
Hope you had your Best Barrister Boxers on 😅
A very good piece of advice I heard many years ago was: Everybody should become an expert at something. For then they will realize how little, other experts really know.
Beware of low flying aircraft
Pants & Zip !
Al says below that no prep and natural is part of the channel trademark. I think its part of his disarming the opponent! Personally, I often leave my Zip undone as a display of self confidence!😄
Well done. Observation your an Expert!
My late uncle was an ex-Shell toxicologist at a consultancy based at the University of Guildford who worked with many barristers as an expert witness. He was very good at explaining the concept of 'risk'.
My late uncle was an ex-Shell toxicologist as well.
Did we have the same uncle?
@@patrickbateman9197 Are shells toxic?
I agree with you, My cousin Vinney was a brilliant film.
In relation to Jenkins been having a very stimulating debate on whether he was an “expert witness” (facts and opinion) as defined in the rules, or simply a witness with expertise in the Horizon system ( facts only). I contend that if he was an expert witness he should have been guided and trained to include all the necessary text in his statements, and I am surprised none of the investigators or prosecution lawyers ensured that he did so. He was a “techie” left to his own devices and done up like a kipper by his and PO management.
I instructed experts in proceedings in the Patents Court and in litigation in other jurisdictions. I am astonished that the courts (and defence lawyers) never challenged POL on Gareth Jenkins' position. It seems absolutely obvious that he could only be a fact expert - "this is the way that Horizon works". If you asked him his opinion on whether there were better ways of doing it, the almost inevitable (on the face of it, at least) answer is "no, this is the best way I can think of doing it" (because that's the way he did it!). It is so absurd that it still blows my mind when I think about it. To that extent, it is a failure of the legal system, not Jenkins', although his evidence before the Inquiry shows that he shoulders plenty of responsibilty nonetheless.
It’s fantastic how eco friendly you are! Thank you for helping make the world a better place!
Stunning church.
I love it when a Judge doesn’t agree/ accept the experts evidence it sends the benches shuffling about. My favourite was a witness saying he didn’t agree with the sniffer dog 😆
Thanks for the information on Expert Witnesses.
I remember being an expert witness in a Building Bar case. The expert for the other side, when asked why he was an expert, stated that he had been a Professional Quantity Surveyor for 20 years. The Judge, perhaps pulling his leg, said "there are only three professions available for men, the Bar, the Church or the Army; for women there are other options".
An expert witness is . . ooh look a squirrel.
Heh yeah, I do have the attention span of...ooh, the sun is back out.
What if any methods are there to stop experts going into areas they are not experts in? I am thinking about Professor Meadow where it was clear from the media reports at the time he had no understanding of statistics. Does the blame go to the defence team who must have been similarly mathematically inept to have not torn him apart at the time?
Fly is undone. Oh dear
Having served as an expert witness in an exceptionally narrow field, it was fun that the only other possible expert witnesses from the UK were my colleagues in my team. Needless to say, they weren't called for rebuttal 🤣
Should have checked your zip before filming!
Can I be an expert witness in police corruption by having a S Yorks postcode and entry on to a list of vexatious litigants c/o post office solicitor Mandy Talbot in 2003 ?
Can't an expert witness also sit in on the trial and listen to the evidence?
Like any witness in a civl case, they can sit in. Although oftentimes they won't actually attend the trial. The idea being you do all the questions beforehand and they just submit a statement and a report.
They can also usually listen to the other expert in a criminal trial.
Wow, that’s a great question!! Glad you asked!
"Everything he just said was b***s***".
Have you ever wanted to say it?
Honey or die of sepsis? I'm very glad you chose the honey, Mr Robertshaw.
Me too. I do feel guilty about it though.
@@artmedialawmedicine and veganism are a tricky one. ideally of course we'd move away from all animal products in medicine. I have to take some medicine that contains gelatine and lactose, so I balance it out best I can by writing to the companies to ask them to switch to vegan alternatives.
Thou hast left undone those things which ought not to be left undone! 😂😂😂
Don't worry folks the gate is open but the beast is asleep 😅
Keeping it real, as usual!
This is why I subscribe to the channel - informative, witty and fun.
Ask not for whom the Bell tolls! Good afternoon to you. Lovely to listen to you again and on a topic I find important. The detail was attention grabbing also. And the type of surroundings I have come to expect from you. Thank you. 😊
Your mention of hot-tubbing conjured up an interesting mental picture. Do those involved keep their wigs on, or would the steam affect the curls?! 'Hope you enjoyed the talk, btw!
I wonder if mr Beer was cleverly questioning Jenkins about the role he thought he was playing to open up the chance of subsequent litigation?
Come on now.... Do your lies up!!!. Bust a good talk as usual.
Sir, regarding Overriding Interests, are they subject to limitation rules? Would greatly appreciate your views on the matter
Great Church! In Australia my experience in planning cases that the experts conference (not hot tubbing) to sort out matters on which they agree on and matters that are contentions. Usually coffee and nice cakes are involved. Then a joint report is prepared by the experts. This helps everyone focus on the important issues rather than having to wade through pages of reports.
I do feel sorry for Jenkins and his lawyer made some excellent points about his instructing solicitors responsibility in making sure he understood the expert witness rules and duties.
I would have thought that there was an inherent conflict of interest in having him and an expert.
At your suggestion I've just watched My Cousin Vinny. Awesome film, I think I can see why it's popular with lawyers :-)
The director is a lawyer himself. He's actually English. He co-wrote Yes Minister.
Amazing Church
A lovely spot, would ye have the post code, when we travel, its worth a visit.
Hope he reads the comments in time. 😂
Very interesting and useful. Many thanks
In the past I have been regarded as an 'expert witness'. In this I was an independent witness. Based on my skills and technological knowledge I was able to voice an opinion as you suggest. Can you explain to me how the legal fraternity suggested that Mr Jenkins achieved these criteria? How did a judge accept a person employed by an interested party meet the requirements of an 'expert witness'? Come on, call it for what it is 🙂
Well, only an employee of Fujitsu could be sufficiently knowledgeable about Horizon to be an expert on it but such a person cannot be considered independent so what do you do?
@@petehiggins33 No, you miss the point entirely. An expert witness would be somebody of sufficient programming /systems skills and knowledge to give opinion about the Futjitsu system. For example, a meteorological expert witness can provide evidence on weather matters without being an employee of the UK Met Office.The court and the legal people have totally misrepresented the role of Jenkins.
@@Swaggerlot True but that is not what was required here. The court needed to know what bugs there were in Horizon and whether or not they could be responsible for the losses. A general computer expert could not know this, only someone who was actually involved in the Horizon software could.
@@petehiggins33 Therefore you are talking about the general disclosure requirements of the POL prosecutors and supporting legal people. My observation throughout is that the only people that should be hung out to dry in this debacle are those with legal professional status, including the judges involved. The entire legal system should be investigated.
how is it determined if a judge or jury make the decision?
Expert def:X=unknown quantity + drip under pressure.
There are lots of professional experts - Dr Worden, I believe, gave expert evidence for POL in the Horizon Issues (possibly also the Common Issues) trial, and was also an expert in proceedings where I instructed our clients' expert against him. The problem of having such a "professional expert", we found, was that they cam across as being a hired gun: even though they were obviously competent, they might not quite have the expertise that goes to the heart of a case. I think that showed in Mr Justice Fraser's assessment against the SPMs' expert, whose evidence Fraser J preferred. In our case, the judge also preferred our expert to Dr Worden.
You have Egg on your Chin……😂
Alan, were you aware that your fly appeared undone throughout this video?
Yup. hence the text underneath. But I like to keep it real! And I'm a one take sort of chap.
If the Respondent is preparing a trial bundle do they have a right to ask me why I want something included in it
The rule is that anything that goes into the trial bundle without objection is deemed to be accepted as authentic. So if for example you wanted to challenge the veracity of an exhibit then you would have to make that clear. But generally people can put in what they want. Although it should be clear just from the statements etc why something is going in.
@@artmedialaw thank you I just found it weird they were asking me why I wanted it in and what evidence it lrovided
Provided
Great to hear youre a vegan, had no idea :) now love this channel even more!
Possibly the most likeable vegan on earth! The issue with that paper is that not everyone will know it’s good for the environment and may think it’s litter. My question is what about biased experts - what happens to them if they have found to be biased? Also has an expert ever been found to have prior knowledge of a defendant and the issues behind that. Enjoy your trip!
If an expert is put forward by one side, then how can his testimony be independent? If he does not support that side will they get paid ?
Experts make sure they get paid up front! But they still have to be independent regardless of who is paying them. There are a number of judgements where experts have been roundly criticised for being partisan. The usual remedy in such situations is to disregard the expert's testimony.
If you do your job as solicitors properly, you'll have interviewed a half dozen potential experts to pick the one (1) whose views align with your client's case; (2) who has the right expertise (no good getting an expert on coding practices who has only coded in Python and C rather than C# if your case hinges on C# code); and (3) who articulates his knowledge and opinions well.
Odd how, in many examples of experts, the expert accountant is never mentioned. In civil cases where quantum of damages generally needs to be assessed, without the expert accountant very little if anything will be achieved. In my opinion of course.
Was this a Take 1?
My approach to vids, and life in general, is, no preparation, one take. If you ever do see any edits that's just because the camera has a habit of turning itself off. I've decided that's the channel brand, and not just me being lazy.
@@artmedialaw It works very well. Keep up the good work Alan!
Its all so arbitrary. The US seems streets ahead of us on expert witnesses.
A CAFCAS speaker in my case was beyond incompetent.
Cafcas themselves admit that PAS parental alienation syndrome is factor in 80% of family court cases.
But UK courts just don't have any experts to recall.
The americans lead on this. But its also studied and known throughout Europe.
An expert called Dr Richard Gardener. Wrote the papers on it.
Our family courts do imeasurable harms with their archaic procedures.
Whats the point of expert witnesses when a judge can default to 'balance of probabilities '. 😂
Might as well throw a dice before the procedure and save people a fortune.
Egg on your face, sir?
😱 Ohhh Al 🫣
Your talk and explanation is 👌🏼 but your fly is not 🤦♀️🙆♀️🫣
Is it an offence to appear on TV with your flys open?