The Post Office scandal and the fallibility of wanting to win

Tony bingham 2017 bw web

Expert witnesses are seen as unbiased, but they have a human flaw – the wish to win for their team. That’s part of what went wrong at the Post Office

The lecture evening was put on jointly by the Adjudication Society and the Dispute Resolution Board Foundation; well done. It was all about the use of expert witnesses in adjudication. Many enthusiastic experts came; potential appointees. We mingled. I probed several potential experts about the Post Office inquiry. The question guaranteed a glazed look of boredom in the eyes of my potential appointees. And if in due course I conduct a formal interview seeking a suitable expert witness, I would expect the candidates to know all about this story of one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history. After all, my expert witness candidates are also playing a key role in justice.

Now, this commentary won’t be about the disastrous Post Office events: the deaths, the imprisonments, the bankruptcies, the social shunning of subpostmasters wrongly said to have had their hands in the till. Nor does it cast blame on the expert witness whose expert report to the court missed out one or two, or three, bits of information. Nor does it cast blame on the management at the top of the Post Office, as so much of the press is ready to so do.

This content is available to REGISTERED users

You are not currently logged in.

LOGIN or REGISTER to access this story

Gated access promo

LOGIN or REGISTER for free access on selected stories and sign up for email alerts.

Take out a print and online or online only subscription and you will get immediate access to:

  • Breaking industry news as it happens
  • Expert analysis and comment from industry leaders
  • Unlimited access to all stories, including premium content
  • Full access to all our online archive

Get access to premium content subscribe today