Christine Rolland

As forensic accountants with decades of experience in Scotland’s courts, my colleague Peter Graham and I understand the weight that comes with the title ‘expert witness’. The role demands objectivity, independence, and the courage to speak plainly, especially when our findings aren’t what solicitors or clients want to hear.

That objectivity includes knowing where our expertise ends. Sometimes we have to tell solicitors that a particular issue falls outside our remit. It’s uncomfortable, but necessary and means that instructing solicitors have an expert opinion that is reliably independent. The court deserves an impartial, evidence-based opinion, not advocacy disguised as expertise.

Unlike the system in England & Wales which has the Criminal Procedure Rules (Part 19), Civil Procedure Rules (Part 35) and the Family Procedure Rules (Part 25) to govern the use of expert evidence, the Scottish court system does not have codified regulations relating to expert evidence. However, experienced expert witnesses in Scotland are aware that whilst they do not apply in Scotland, the spirit of these rules must be followed. This was confirmed in the Supreme Court case of Kennedy v Cordia which set out the primary duties incumbent on expert witnesses. 

Over the past 25 years, we’ve been trained and retrained in our duties as experts. We’ve learned not just through formal witness familiarisation, but from court feedback and peer experience, where experts are praised or criticised not for siding with one party, but for how well they uphold their duty to the court. The Scottish courts already possess robust mechanisms for assessing expert evidence. Judges are skilled at probing the boundaries of an expert’s knowledge, and cross-examination remains a powerful tool for exposing overreach or bias. We have witnessed occasions where, through rigorous questioning, the true limits of an expert’s competence are laid bare, ensuring that the court is not misled.

Still, we’ve encountered experts who stray outside their lane. Whether through eagerness to help or lack of training, some cross into advocacy or offer opinions they’re not qualified to give. That’s not just problematic, it can derail justice.

So, is regulation the answer? Maybe. But not without risk. Creating a register of “approved” experts might give false assurance. Someone might be on the list but lack the specific expertise needed for a particular case. Worse, courts or instructing solicitors could start treating registration as a shortcut, ticking a box instead of scrutinising actual relevance and experience.

What works, in our experience, is simple but effective: careful instruction, close scrutiny of qualifications, and a clear understanding, on both sides, of an expert’s duties and limits. Professional bodies can play a vital role by providing ongoing training and peer review, ensuring that standards are upheld without stifling the pool of available experts. That, more than a central registry or formal regulator, is what keeps standards high and justice on track.

Ultimately, the goal must be to ensure that courts receive the best possible evidence. While regulation may have a role to play, it is the culture of professionalism, continuous education, and mutual respect between experts and the legal profession that truly upholds the integrity of our justice system.

Christine Rolland is a director at Henderson Loggie