We are grateful to Dr Rix and colleagues for pointing out to those who might misread our editorial ^{Reference Series and Herring1} that the Pool case has not changed the law of expert evidence, although we find it difficult to see how our brief reference to the case of Pool could be seen as misleading. They refer to their own very helpful analysis of recent case law on expert evidence in the September issue of BJPsych Advances, ^{Reference Rix, Haycroft and Eastman2} which, unfortunately, had not been published at the time our editorial went to press.

Readers who would like a full and scholarly account of the law on expert evidence are referred to Hodgkinson & James, ^{Reference Hodgkinson and James3} although even the most recent edition (2015) was not able to include discussion of Squire and Pool. We look forward with much interest not only to the publication of Rix et al's further article in Advances, but also to the revision of CR193, the College's guidance on the responsibilities of experts. All of us who give expert evidence are of course also required to take note of the relevant GMC guidance. ⁴