Evidence by phone in court?

January

Hi all,

Was reading this article in the Irish Independent yesterday and was wondering something.

Could a medical expert give evidence by phone in a medical negligence case? This particular one has moved to Australia and we thought he would no longer be able to provide evidence, I know this is slightly different in that it was the accused giving evidence over the phone...

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

Kosseegan

There was a decision by Clarke J about 3 years ago where he was prepared to allow Michael Lynn give evidence by video link. It would be up to the judge. I doubt if phone evidence would suffice. Medical evidence is only called when the medical experts disagree. In that situation a full cross examination would have to take place unless there were compelling reasons to the contrary.

January

Kosseegan wrote: »

There was a decision by Clarke J about 3 years ago where he was prepared to allow Michael Lynn give evidence by video link. It would be up to the judge. I doubt if phone evidence would suffice. Medical evidence is only called when the medical experts disagree. In that situation a full cross examination would have to take place unless there were compelling reasons to the contrary.

Which means?? In layman's terms if you can!! Basically, we had a medical report done by a top medical expert from the UK, he was supposed to give evidence at the court but it was dragged out so much the medical expert has since emigrated to Australia and has said that he can no longer give evidence because he doesn't hold a valid medical licence for the UK any longer. The article states that the accused gave evidence via telephone (not video link) and we were just wondering if the same could be done if the medical expert, who now lives in Australia) consents to same... would the judge allow it?? We've had trouble finding another medical expert to give evidence because a lot of them know the doctor who the case is going against and they are all loathe to go against him in court.

January

Anyone?

CIARAN_BOYLE

January wrote: »

Which means?? In layman's terms if you can!!

Medical evidence is only really called for when the medical experts agree. Your doc says one thing their doc says another. That means that cross examining is needed as lawyers scrutinise details over and over again on the stand. That most likely has to be in person so giving evidence by phone is unlikely to be approved.

Victor

You need to get your solicitor to see what the judge will accept. I ca'n see a judge accepting a phone call, but possibly video evidence (skype on steroids) - so the witness's demeanour, reactions, etc. can be seen, thigns can be pointed to, ec. I imagine it can be done for cheaper that the €2,000-3,000 (on top of doctor's fee) it might cost to bring the doctor back.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Medical evidence is only really called for when the medical experts agree.

Should the last word be "disagree"?

Brother Psychosis

video link evidence is specifically provided for in certain situations, but phone evidence is rarely (if ever) used, apart from voicemails which have been played in court, but not to give evidence. If, as you said, the doctors licence is no longer valid, then i'd imagine the other side will want to try and cross examine him as to why that is so and they'll probably want video at the very least to, as Victor said, see reaction demeanor etc

CIARAN_BOYLE

Victor wrote: »

Should the last word be "disagree"?

yep thanks

Victor

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

If, as you said, the doctors licence is no longer valid, then i'd imagine the other side will want to try and cross examine him as to why that is so

I iamgine this is because he no longer practices in Ireland and can't be supervised by the IMO, HSE, etc. here, as he is Australia. If he is working as a doctor in Australia, I imagine he is registered with the equivalent authorities.

Kosseegan

It has nothing to do with his licence to practise in Ireland. He is being called to give an expert opinion. Most medical experts who appear in medical negligence cases are from outside Ireland because it is difficult to source an expert willing to give evidence in Ireland. Personal attendance is the usual requirement of witnesses in a situation where their evidence is being challenged. Phone evidence would never be accepted.

James Jones

The difference between the case you linked and the case you are involved in now is that the first one was followed "a letter of complaint to the Medical Council" whereas your own case is in Court.

Milk & Honey

James Jones wrote: »

The difference between the case you linked and the case you are involved in now is that the first one was followed "a letter of complaint to the Medical Council" whereas your own case is in Court.

In the case which is linked the medical expert witness ( Dr Fergal Cummins) was present. The only person not there was the Defendant. He admitted most of the essential facts but he would have been entitled to have the medical expert cross examined if he wished. He might have tried to argue that it would not have been reasonable to expect him to carry out further tests and he could have had a representative challenge Dr. Cummins views on appropriate action in the situation. The Defendant could also have brought in an expert of his own to try and undermine the case against him.
there appears to have been no challenge whatever to Dr Cummins at all so most likley there was in fact nothing to be gained by trying to do so.