Panorama and expert witnesses

Panorama and expert witnesses

The recent Panorama programme on expert witnesses apparently showed that at least some expert witnesses were willing to be experts for the party, rather than experts for the court. I note that the programme involved parties going straight to the experts, and I think this is probably very significant. I would imagine that instructing lawyers usually organize the assumptions on which they wish the expert to base his or her report on. Also I note that no medically qualified experts were involved (nor any with a definite professional body and/or register). 

Is this Panorama exposé a mortal wound to the status of expert witnesses? I'm not so sure it is. I think any decent advocate worth his salt probably assumes that the expert witness instructed by the opposing side may be consciously or subconsciously biased. Any opinion based purely on details (false or true) from the party would be ignored as effectively hearsay, and amounting to oath-helping. Thus a psychologist or psychiatrist who relied purely on a sleepwalker's accounts of his or her sleepwalking would not be fulfilling their role as an expert witness correctly. 

If the Panorama programme injects a note of suspicion in the justice system towards expert test, that would seem to be healthy. I suspect that scepticism is already present in abundance. All expert evidence requires examination by advocates who understand about science. That is far more important and relevant than any register of expert witnesses, which would not prevent bias occurring.