10 ATTENDANCE AT COURT
10.1 Standard
The pathologist must:
a) ensure that they are well prepared prior to attendance at court to give evidence
b) ensure that appearance and behaviour conform to acceptable professional standards
c) deliver evidence in an audible and understandable manner
d) give evidence consistent with the contents of the written report
e) deal with questions truthfully, impartially and flexibly
f) identify questions that are unclear and clarify these before offering a response
g) give answers to technical questions in a manner understandable by those who have no technical or scientific training
h) differentiate between facts and conclusions drawn from those facts, and ensure that any such conclusions lie within their field of expertise
i) consider additional information or alternative hypotheses that are presented and, where warranted, modify conclusions already drawn
j) where it appears that a lawyer has misunderstood or is misstating evidence, ensure that the court is made aware of that misunderstanding or misstatement.
10.2 Code of practice
Pathologists must ensure that they are appropriately prepared prior to attending court to give evidence. The evidence must be objective and fairly presented and attention must be drawn to any areas of speculation. Proper and objective consideration must be given to any interpretations or conclusions fairly raised by the defence, particularly if they are supported by their own expert opinion.
The role of expert witnesses is not to provide evidence that supports the case for the prosecution or for the defence. Opinions must be objectively reached and have scientific validity. Witnesses must make it clear which part of their evidence is fact and which is opinion. The evidence on which that opinion is based must also be available.
Facts may emerge during the course of an investigation, sometimes even during the course of the trial, which may make the pathologist modify a previously held opinion. Pathologists have a duty to give any new facts due consideration and ensure that their evidence remains objective and unbiased. If previously held conclusions can no longer be substantiated, any change of opinion must be promptly and clearly stated, irrespective of any possible embarrassment. Delay will not only potentially harm the administration of justice but will reflect adversely upon the reputation of the pathologist.