The history of the Grange Annual Conference is traced to its roots in the work of Sir William Norwood East, the Royal Medico-Psychological Association and Waddiloves Hospital in Bradford, UK.

In legal parlance, a ‘witness’ must have personal knowledge of the facts that form the basis of their inference or opinion. However, unlike an ordinary or a professional witness, an expert witness can provide opinion evidence, an exception to this doctrine. The evolution of the role of an expert witness or a skilled witness (in Scotland) is outlined in this clinical reflection.

This article considers the role of experts and their interaction with the legal system to better understand the benefits and potential dangers of expert evidence to fact-finders in trials. Medical experts are indispensable to the administration of justice as litigation ranges beyond what judges or juries comfortably deal with as facts of everyday life. This would render courts, absent expert evidence, vastly under-equipped in making decisions of fact. However, the dangers of surrendering authority to experts or of misunderstanding their role must be considered to ensure that expert evidence is used to benefit the administration of justice.

The past 5 years have seen numerous court judgments and changes to rules and procedures that relate to the work of expert psychiatric witnesses in the British Isles. This article outlines these changes, pointing out their implications for the expert witness, and highlights pertinent judgments in over 100 court and tribunal cases.

Although forensic psychiatrists are often asked to comment on a defendant's capacity to form the necessary mens rea for their alleged offence, little has been written on how mental disorders map onto legal concepts of mens rea, particularly those of intention. In this article we explore legal concepts of mens rea and the relevance of mental disorders and alcohol intoxication. We briefly consider philosophical approaches to intentional action and a variety of common mental disorders. We conclude that despite the presence of significant psychopathology it is rare for mental disorders to cause a defendant to lack the ability to form mens rea. Experts should therefore be cautious about coming to the conclusion that they do lead to a lack of capacity to form mens rea and should make clear the limits of their expertise, given the difficulty of translating clinical mental states into legal concepts of liability.

The Parole Board for England and Wales advises on the release, recall and licence conditions of a small subgroup of prisoners serving determinate sentences and the majority of those serving indeterminate sentences. Since the establishment of the Parole Board in 1968, the parole process has been shaped and clarified by further legislation and case law. In certain scenarios, psychiatric expert evidence may be sought to inform the Board's determination of whether a prisoner can be safely released into the community. Psychiatrists preparing expert reports for the Parole Board should be familiar with the current operationalisation of parole. This involves an understanding not only of the functioning of the Parole Board, but also of the criminal justice context in which prisoners subject to parole are managed. Having set the scene, by describing the role of the Parole Board and the wider context, this article examines how to undertake assessments and complete psychiatric reports for the Board.

To make a valid will, a person should be able to understand the nature and consequences of doing so, the extent of their estate and the claims others may have on it. No disorder of mind should be present that would affect their testamentary decisions, and clinicians are therefore often asked to give an opinion on whether a person has testamentary capacity. This article discusses the legal issues involved, with reference to UK case law (in particular, the legal test of Banks v Goodfellow (1870)), and outlines the requirements of testamentary capacity assessment (including retrospective assessments), the clinician's responsibilities when requested by a solicitor to make an assessment of capacity (‘the golden rule’) and what they might expect if appearing in court to give expert witness regarding testamentary capacity. Fictitious case studies are presented illustrating certain points in testamentary capacity assessment.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a complex, heterogeneous mental health problem that can be challenging to identify, assess, understand, diagnose and treat. This article provides an overview and critique of key topics, literature and principles to inform comprehensive and meticulous assessment of PTSDs. Although expert witnesses are the target audience, this article will have relevance for identifying, assessing, understanding and diagnosing PTSDs in all clinical contexts. A range of topics relevant to assessment are discussed, including: the complex relationship between trauma and PTSDs; DSM-5-TR PTSD and ICD-11 PTSD and complex PTSD diagnoses and the similarities and differences between them; the clinical presentation of PTSDs; psychological models of PTSDs; how to approach assessment and differential diagnosis; the impact of PTSD on neuropsychological abilities and functioning (disability); causation, reliability and assessing PTSDs when this is being considered as a legal defence; evidence-based interventions (medication, psychological therapy, when is the ‘right time’ for therapy, contraindications); and prognosis (if untreated, how long therapy/change takes). Given ongoing debate, the article proposes that trauma exposure is best defined in future iterations of the DSM and ICD as exposure to one or more psychologically threatening or horrific experiences that are overwhelming.

In this issue of BJPsych Advances Siddaway explores the challenges of assessing and treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD. In this commentary I reflect on those challenges, not least of which is the need for a thorough understanding of different approaches to diagnoses. The very concept of diagnostic classification systems can be problematic, but when used sensitively they can aid communication, assessment and treatment. The relatively new diagnosis of complex PTSD may serve as a more accurate and more useful description of some psychological difficulties, leading to better treatment decisions. Good assessment, leading to accurate diagnosis, useful formulation and effective treatment takes time, and adequate resources should be allocated. Professionals can help patients to make well-informed choices about treatment options and they should offer evidence-based treatments without unnecessary delay.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ report CR193 details the responsibilities of psychiatrists who provide expert evidence to courts and tribunals. This brief commentary describes the rewards and challenges of expert witness work, the author's role as the College's Lead for Expert Witnesses, and importance of CR193 for expert psychiatric witnesses.

Many authors have considered the ethical dilemmas of a doctor being both the treating physician and expert witness in litigation. The debate has often focused on the potential for bias and the adverse impact being an expert witness can have on the therapeutic alliance. Much of this debate seems rooted in the ethic of non-maleficence. In this article we attempt to examine the other end of this ethical quandary. Using a pragmatic approach, we explore these conflicts and consider biases from other sources. Ultimately, taking on the mantle of both roles is becoming increasingly unavoidable. Hence we argue that, although there are challenges, embracing this dual role can be an important part of holistic treatment, risk management and the pursuit of the ethical principle of justice.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, assessments by video link became a standard and acceptable form of medico-legal evaluation. The various challenges to achieving an accurate and robust medico-legal assessment via a remote platform are explored in this clinical reflection. It is concluded that any limitations to a remotely undertaken assessment must be highlighted to the court and an in-person assessment considered as a reasonable alternative in some cases.

This article reviews some of the various shorter cognitive tests that are available. They vary in complexity, time taken to administer them and what specific neurocognitive domains they assess. They range from screening tests such as the Mini-Cog to more detailed measures such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment or the Mini-Mental State Examination. The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination is more comprehensive and covers attention, memory, verbal fluency, language and visuo-spatial function. The article suggests areas of cognition that may be related to the six competencies assessed in the determination of fitness to plead and to stand trial.

This article critically reviews the case law, guidance and standards related to the provision of expert psychiatric evidence in immigration and asylum cases in the UK. It discusses the potentially complex and medico-legally challenging process of psychiatric evaluation of asylum seekers, and the implications of the presence of psychiatric disorders for issues such as the individual's ability to give oral evidence in court, immigration detention, fitness to fly, removal, deportation, ability to reintegrate into the destination country and appeal rights. To give context to the discussion, it outlines the asylum process in the UK from claiming asylum, initial screening and the ‘substantive interview’ to, if a claim is rejected, appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), detention and the removal process.

In an article in this issue of BJPsych Advances a courageous psychiatrist describes judicial criticism of his expert testimony in a case before the UK's Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). This commentary reflects on the value of criticism and feedback on expert witness work, contrasting the psychiatrist's positive response to the judge's words with the reaction of an expert witness in clinical negligence case, who rejected criticism of his evidence.

This is areview of an early and important textbook published by Sir William Norwood East.