F (A Minor), Re

In care proceedings, allegations that an expert has inaccurately reported an assessment are determined on the balance of probabilities. There is no heightened civil standard because the allegation is serious or its consequences are grave.

The court must identify and determine the allegations necessary to resolve the proceedings proportionately. Where an expert’s methodology, notes and reporting fundamentally compromise the reliability of the opinion, the report should not be left for the trial judge merely to attach such weight as appears appropriate. A replacement expert may be required to prevent an evidential gap and further delay.

During care proceedings concerning three children, the mother challenged the methodology and reliability of a consultant clinical psychologist instructed to assess her. She alleged that his report fabricated or distorted conversations, presented recollections as verbatim quotations, and relied on inadequate assessment material.

The case was transferred to the High Court on that discrete issue. The court had to determine the allegations necessary to resolve the care proceedings, decide the applicable standard of proof, and assess whether the psychologist’s report remained capable of fair reliance.

1. Standard of proof. The court held that the civil standard applied. Serious allegations against a professional did not justify a heightened civil standard. The issue was whether the alleged facts were more probable than not.
2. Proportionate determination. The court did not determine every detailed allegation in the parties’ schedules. It addressed those necessary to resolve the issue and assessed whether the established failings made the expert evidence unreliable.
3. Findings about the report. The psychologist had used quotation marks and italics to present recollections and impressions as the mother’s direct words, although he had not taken verbatim notes. Some material was unsupported by his notes and appeared to have been drawn from other sources and incorporated as direct speech. He had also inaccurately described an incomplete psychometric assessment as completed.
4. Effect on fairness and reliability. The court found that the report overreached its evidential foundation and manipulated material to increase its forensic impact. These failures fell substantially below the standard expected of an expert witness and compromised the fairness of the process under common law principles and Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. The court rejected the submission that the report could simply stand for the trial judge to weigh.
5. Further expert evidence. Because the methodological failures were fundamental, a judge could not fairly rely on the report’s conclusions. A new expert was required to avoid an evidential lacuna and further delay in determining the children’s circumstances. The court also held that the burden of proof remained on the party advancing the allegations; the psychologist’s admissions did not shift it to him.