Searchline. Let us do the hunting whatever expert you need. Please call our free SearchLine today on 0161 834 0017

Journal Detail back to listing

ew-general
New guidance aims to restrict use of unregulated psychologists as expert witnesses in cour
  • Sep 28, 2023
  • Latest Journal

Family judges who appoint unregulated psychologists as expert witnesses in the courts should issue a judgment to explain their decision, according to updated guidance designed to protect the public from inadequately trained professionals.

Crucially, additions to existing joint guidance from the Family Justice Council and the British Psychological Society (BPS) also set out the distinction between a psychologist who is registered with the regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), and an academic psychologist who would not have the same clinical competencies.

Only those psychologists regulated with the HCPC have the relevant clinical experience to conduct psychological assessments, make diagnoses and recommend treatment, the guidance makes clear. Academic psychologists should have chartered          membership with the BPS.

Family courts would expect medical experts to be registered with the General Medical Council and there is no grey area where a judge can circumvent that. However, when it comes to psychological evidence, there is a loophole which means the courts can facilitate the assessment of children by insufficiently qualified people that the NHS would not allow.”

The updated guidance follows a landmark judgment earlier this year in which England’s most senior family court judge described a “confusing system” in which the generic label “psychologist” is not protected and can be used by anyone.

In the judgment known as “Re C” Sir Andrew McFarlane laid out reasons for rejecting the appeal of a mother who was seeking a re-hearing of her case after complaining the jointly instructed “parental alienation” expert who assessed her family was neither regulated nor appropriately qualified.

McFarlane made no criticisms of the expert but he did address the wider debate that has been building in recent years about the instruction of non-regulated psychologists.

MPs have called for an inquiry into the use of experts in the family courts but government ministers have responded by saying it is up to the judiciary to reject experts they do not believe to be appropriately qualified.