Bias in Expert Evidence - Assignment Example

BIAS IN EXPERT EVIDENCE STUDENT NAME PROFESSOR’S NAME COURSE TITLE DATE Introduction The main question by legal scholars and academicians is whether there is a high chance or possibility to have objective expert evidence adduced in a court of law. This is why in most cases, expert witnesses commonly known as “hired guns” use their expertise and knowledge to enable the highest bidder win a case (Andrew, 2003). These individuals relied upon by the courts to make contributions that assist the court in making decisions but at times, their opinions cast aspersions on the role of expert witnesses tainted by the acts of a few ‘rouge’ expert witnesses (Andrew, 2003). The role of experts in many instances is to give and share their advantage and technical knowledge unavailable to ordinary men and that the provision of such knowledge. The issue is whether there is possibility or desirability that expert evidence adduced in court represents the truth and nothing but the truth. In practice, there is a duty on expert witnesses to be independent and act in the best interests of the court and the case however; questions arise on whether there is a standard applicable to experts either working for or against the defendant. In medical law, issues of expert witnesses are common especially in medical malpractice suits that involve negligence, medication and even causation effects of medicines administered to patients. It is of paramount importance to note that the admissibility of expert evidence in England and Wales are premised on the possibility and desirability of obtaining objective expert opinion evidence. The realistic outcomes of getting objective evidence from the expert witness depend on procedural and substantive reforms. There have been significant reforms in England and Australia on the role of expert witnesses in courts with expectations that the reforms can lead to less bias in expert witness testimony. This paper focuses on the available literature on bias in expert evidence especially in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK), as well as case law on expert witnesses. History of Expert Witnesses An opinion according to the Australian Law Reform Commission refers to ‘an inference from observed and communicable data” or facts’. It is a long-standing practice in most legal systems that spurns into the 16th and in the 17th Century that experts sought to furnish courts with assistance and did not represent the interests of any side to the litigations. Actually, in England around the 14th Century the judges allowed surgeons to give opinions on various medical cases that were brought before the court. In this period, the courts advised the courts on topics that they were unfamiliar with certain topics for instance, whether a wound was capable of causing mayhem. The places of an expert witness were held in high regard until the courts allowed parties to call their own expert witnesses. Historically, suits against medical malpractice were the first to utilize the use of expert testimony in order to establish the threshold of the standard of practice of doctors. In the case of Slater v Baker and Stapleton (1767) 2 Wils KB 359 set the professional standard of a surgeon by what the surgeons said. In that case, Slater had filed an action against Baker and apothecary Stapleton for improperly managing a leg fracture since Baker and Stapleton ignorantly and unskillfully broke and disunited the callous of the plaintiff. According to Slater’s physician witness, testifying against the defendants said that they failed to follow the standard procedure, and the judge in stating that they failed to act according to the “rule of the profession” awarded Slater £500. The contentions relating to the reputation of expert witnesses declined sharply in 1843 in the case of the Tracy Peerage Case (1843) 8 ER 7000 that there is hardly any weight that can beaded by scientific witnesses because they come with bias on their minds to support the cause in which they are embarked. The perceptions of expert witnesses called to the stand by parties to the proceedings bemoaned the image that experts were “shrills, hired guns, prostitutes, mere actors on state and other epithets” (James & Sartwelle, 2013). It was alleged that experts played the tune of lawyers through manipulations such that they were willing to testify on anything that was absurd to support their legal arguments (Huber, 1991). An expert witness in ordinary precepts is not an ordinary witness since he is paid in a sense of gain that is being employed by the person calling him to give evidence in court. There is a high chance that no matter how honest an expert witness may be, there is still a chance that he might be biased in favour of his employee. Expert Opinion Evidence The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) in Australia at section 76 to section 80, at section 76 of the Evidence Act it states that “evidence of an opinion is not admissible to prove the existence if a fact about the existence of which the opinion was expressed”. The Evidence Act contemplates as a rule that expert opinion evidence is inadmissible in proving the existence of facts. However, section 79 of the Evidence Act states that an opinion based on specialized knowledge. In this regard a person who has specialized knowledge due to the person’s training, study or experience, the general rule does not apply to the opinion of that person that is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge. Additionally section 80 of the Evidence Act states that the evidence of an opinion is inadmissible only because it is about a fact in issue or ultimate issues or that which is of common knowledge. In the normal court procedures, either the prosecution or defence to adduce evidence in relation to the facts available to him about the case calls an ordinary witness. However, in medical law cases, calling an expert witness is essential in order to ascertain the true nature of the facts that is what was the cause of death, the injuries, the medical procedure and issues of medical negligence. It is at this point that “facts” and “opinions” become two separate notions. In a court of law, before admission of expert witness an expert needs to fulfill three things; field of expertise, a person is qualified as a witness and that the issue in which he is to testify is not within the ordinary human experience, something not classified as “common knowledge”. This has been set in precedent in the case of Clark v Ryan (1960) 130 CLR 486 that in law, the opinion of a person possessing peculiar skill in a subject matter of enquiry is important in cases whereby the exclusion of such evidence may lead to injustice. In many instances, an expert witness is important to make the court understand and be aware of knowledge beyond their scope of understanding. Similarly in the case of R v Silverlock [1894] 2 Q.B 766 Williams J stated that a person should not be allowed to adduce evidence as an expert unless his profession or cause of study gives him an opportunity to judge other than other people. Bias in Expert Opinion Evidence Apparent bias manifests itself when an expert witness is bias (actual bias) that is untainted. The question in R (PD) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal [2004] EWCA Civ 311 “ was whether a fair-minded and informed observer having studied the fact would conclude a real possibility of bias”. In many instances, it is what the public perceives as bias if one fails to adopt a balanced approach in the case. Adversarial bias refers to witness bias that arises because one party to the adversarial proceedings retains the experts in order to advance its cause. This source of bias can be; conscious bias, unconscious bias and selection bias (Bernstein, 2008). Conscious bias arises in instances whereby the ‘hired guns’ adapt their opinions in a way that suits the needs of the attorney hiring them. This is because most expert witnesses are paid to give their testimonies to the court hence serve as ‘witnesses for hire’. Moreover, expert witnesses can give their own opinion about the evidence depending on their own rational views and perceptions. Ideally and in practice, there is a tendency that the court is more likely to believe expert evidence because of its scientific aspect and them being unbiased participants in the proceedings. Additionally it is usually difficult for the opposing counsel to discredit a hired-gun for taking money in exchange for his testimony than the testimony given by an ordinary witness. This is because it is easy for the counsel to point out the source of bias in an ordinary witness such as the relationship with the accused or financial interest. The opposing counsel also has the option of having his own expert witness to discredit the evidence of the other expert witness. Unconscious bias according to a judicial opinion by Sir George Jessel he stated in Abinger v Ashton , 171 R.Eq. 358 that there exists a natural bias that is to do something in return to those who employ you or remunerate you. For instance, forensic experts mostly work with the government and in criminal cases their testimony is likely to support the assertions of the prosecution than that of the accused. The unconscious bias may affect an expert’s opinions and views. Selection bias refers to situations in which an expert decides not to present the general aspects of the testimony, but selectively those that the attorney needs during the trial. According to Sir Jessel, the experts are merely selected “according as their opinion is known to incline’ that is the court fails to get the professional opinion from each party’s expert but “an exceptional opinion” from each party. In one criminal case that of Meadow v General Medical Council Professor Meadow an expert witness refuted the claim of Mrs. Clark in the murder of her two sons that they might have died from sudden infant death syndrome. In the end the Court of Appeal that those verdicts were unfair since the Crown’s pathologist had failed to give material non-disclosure. After trial allegations of serious misconduct were instituted against Professor Meadow in respect of evidence, he brought to court. The Court in considering the appeal, they held that ‘an expert witness conduct if it raises questions as to his fitness then one needs to investigate the conduct’. In this regard, the court should not accept evidence from a compromised witness despite instances of misconduct, misleading and deceitful. What is the Expected Standard? In practice, the law has put a high threshold as set in the case of National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68, that an expert witness must be; impartial, and must provide independent assistance and unbiased opinions. According to Lord Woolf in R v Gough [1993] HL 646 at 672 the dangers presented by being bias is that en expert witness is disqualified from being an expert witness this is because “bias operates in an insidious manner such that the person may be unconscious of the bias and its effect”. In most instances the standard set is determined not by the state of mind of an individual but how his position would be perceived by a reasonable person and whether there is a real possibility that the person is biased (Re Medicaments (No.2) [2001] 1 WLR 700). The consequence of bias affects the credibility of an expert witness as held in Wallshire Ltd v Aarons [1989] 1 EGLR 147. In this case, a chartered surveyor evidence was refused since he appeared to the judge that “tended to descend into the arena’. Further apparent bias by an expert witness can easily make the evidence wholly inadmissible in the court as held in Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trustees Inc v Goldberg (No.3) [2001] 1 WLR 2337. The case sets a general rule that : “a useful test of ‘independence’ is that the expert would express the same opinion if given the same instructions by an opposing party. Experts should not take it upon themselves to promote the point of view of the party instructing them or engage in the role of advocates.” Similarly in the case of Harmony Shipping Co. v Orri [1979] 3 All E.R. 177 Lord Denning MR stated that it is the duty of the courts to establish the truth and once a subpoena is issued to an witness one must answer the questions as the court asks him. According to him, one must be able to answer the issues that fall within his scope of expertise to establish its relevance and applicability to the case. Principles Set in The Ikarian Reefer Case The case of National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Company Limited (The “Ikarian Reefer”)[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68 though it does not involve medical law cases, it shades light on the expectations of expert witnesses in executing their duties and obligation to the court. In that case both the plaintiffs and the defendants sought expert opinion in order to ascertain whether the insurers were liable to pay for the fire that caused damage to the vessel. According to Cresswell J he stated that the duties of an expert is to: a) That in giving evidence the expert’s should be seen to be an independent product of the expert which is untainted by any form of exigencies of litigations (Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 WLR 246 , 256 as per Lord Wilberforce b) Secondly an expert witness needs to give an independent assistance to the Court this is by giving an unbiased opinion in relation to the matters that fall within his scope of expertise and that at no time should they take or assume the role of an advocate c) Thirdly, an expert witness needs to give a clear outline of their assumptions on which the opinion is based and should never omit evidence that is considered material to the case. d) An expert witness has an obligation to make it clear if an issue falls outside his scope of expertise and that if his opinion is insufficiently researched then he should make it known to the court at the earliest time possible. e) Moreover, if an expert witness decides to change his opinion on a material matter, then the expert witness must communicate the change to the court without delay and appropriately to the court. In another case in the UK, Loveday v Renton and Wellcome Foundation Ltd (1988) expert witnesses were called to determine a vaccines viability and whether it could cause permanent brain damage in young children. The experts failed to establish whether on a balance of probability the vaccine used in normal doses in the UK could cause permanent brain damage in young children. In the decision of the court, they held that if a doctor acted in accordance with the practice and opinion of a respectable responsible body of medical opinion then one will not be guilty of negligence. This is regardless of whether another respectable body and responsible body of medical opinion hold a different view. In that case, expert opinions not adduced in court were left out unless they were adopted by a suitable qualified expert to support or reinforce opinion. In UK precedents expert opinions are only taken into consideration if the report is persuasive and adopted by a qualified expert. Expert Impartiality Impartiality of expert witnesses is of paramount importance and there us a duty for them to be objective in order to lend assistance to the court (Zander, 1997). Impartiality is similar to the duty of being independent that is an expert witness need not be influenced by other factors while giving his testimony in court. According to Lord Woolf’s Access to Justice Report (1995) he reports that the problems in expert evidence is that the experts are recruited as part of the team that investigates and advances a party’s contentionas and then one changes roles to provide independent expert evidence which the court expects. In the case of Abbey National Mortgages plc v Key Surveyors Nationwide Ltd and others [1996] 3 All ER 184 at 191 it was noted that expert witnesses instructed on behalf of parties always tend to espouse the cause of those giving them instructions leading to them in a greater or lesser extent being partisan. The House of Lords had set a guiding principle in 1980s in giving expert evidence. In the case of Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 All ER 267 Lord Wilberforce said that the expert evidence adduced in court should be, and should be seen to be , the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to form or content as to form or content by the exigencies. Further, there needs to be some degree o consultation between experts and legal advisers is entirely proper. The Civil Procedure Rule 35.3 creates an overriding duty to the court ; a) It is the duty of an expert to help the court on the matters within his expertise b) This duty overrides any obligations t the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid It is important to note that expert evidence needs to be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced by pressures of litigation and that the expert assists the court by providing the court with an objective unbiased opinion on matters within the expertise and note assume the role of an advocate. In the case of Polivitte Ltd v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Plc [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 379 it suggests a rule of thumb: “a useful test of ‘independence’ is that the expert would express the same opinion if given the same instructions by an opposing party. Experts should not take it upon themselves to promote the point of view of the party instructing them or engage in the role of advocates.” In the same spirit, judicial precedents set by the UK and Australia all assert that an expert witness should be able to provide independent assistance to the court. In relation to issues of independence as stated in the case of Stanton v Callaghan [2000] 2 QB 75 it is the duty of the duty of an expert witness to act in good faith and honestly and in giving independent opinion should not mislead the court. Despite the law granting expert witnesses immunity from prosecution, an expert will not be given protection in cases of dishonest, malicious and a misleading form of advice. In many instances, the issues of standard of care applicable to experts is a question of the interpretation of the court. Just like any profession, an expert has the duty to act with reasonable skill and care in giving evidence in the court of law. In UK and Australia, the duty of care to help and assist the court within their expertise is an overriding duty to the courts. This obligation even overrides their duty and obligation to the parties that retain them and that they should not serve exclusive interest to those retaining them. An expert must be able to give impartial and objective evidence especially if the matters in question are within his scope of expertise. In the case of Field v Leeds City Council [2000] 1 EGLR 54 according to Lord Woolf he asserts that a person is qualified to give expert evidence of one is able to give an objective, unbiased opinion on matters to which the evidence relates to. This is the primary duty of an expert to the court. In a more recent case of Toth v Jarman [2006] 4 All ER 1276, the court recognized that an expert plays the role of assisting the court through giving an objective unbiased opinion. This is in relation to cases where there is significant existence of conflict of interest the court can decline to take into consideration his evidence or give permission to adduce his evidence. In the case of Toth v Jarman a claim was filed by the appellant in relation to damages for nervous shock and psychiatric injury that was sustained by the father because his son died due to negligent treatment by the defendant. In that case, a claim for negligence was sustained since the defendant had failed to administer intravenous injections while on claims on causation on a balance of probabilities the court was unsatisfied that the injection could have saved his life. The Judge relied on Professor Hull the defendant expert’s witness. In the appeal issues of conflict of interest arose since Professor Hull was a member of the Cases Committee of the Medical Defence Union, however the court of appeal had to consider the independence of the expert rather than the conflict of interest. According to the court, they stated that independent opinion is sufficient in and itself. “Where an expert has a material or significant conflict of interest, the court is likely to decline to act on his evidence, or indeed to give permission for his evidence to be adduced. This means it is important that a party who wishes to call an expert with a potential conflict of interest should disclose details of that conflict at as early a stage in the proceedings as possible” Toth v Jarman [2006] . In its judgment, the court held that Professor Hull had no conflict of interest and that the conflict of interest did not affect his suitability as an expert witness in relation to the evidence tendered in court. Impartiality and independence are issues that the court must deal with at the earliest time in relation to calling expert witnesses. In adducing that there is conflict of interest, the there needs to be sufficient proof that a relationship a person has does not make them unfavourable to the party as held in Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trust v Goldberg[2002] 1 WLR 237. In many instances, researchers assert that experts especially in medical negligence cases tend to protect their own especially if it is their fellow practitioner. Practically there is an attitude by experts flock to save their own and that only a few of the upright would risk ostracism from his practitioners. Reliability and Admissibility The courts generally are not allowed to call witnesses to give their opinions in court, but that the evidence must relate to the issues in question in court. The admissibility of expert witnesses according to the Australian Law Reform Commission; “it tends to exclude expert opinion evidence if it relates to matters that fall within the comprehension and knowledge of ordinary human experience”. This is because the court requires assistance by the evidence given by the experts. This approach implies that psychologists /psychiatrists can give evidence in instances where the accused are abnormal but not when a person is normal (R v Turner [1975] 1 Q.B 834). In the rules of admissibility, the courts need to be satisfied that a person is qualified to adduce expert evidence either due to their experience or due to the field of study. Further, the court requires that in giving evidence, an expert must give evidence limited to the scope of his expertise for instance a general practitioner cannot adduce evidence on neurology and at the same instance a psychologists is not qualified to diagnose mental illness (Klimoskiv v Walter Authority of W.A (1989) 5 SASR 188). Opinion evidence is inadmissible unless it relates to a field of expertise for either instance according to Gillies (1989) that a clearly organized branch of knowledge a discipline in social or physical science despite it being narrowly construed. It operates on the assumption that its admissibility depends entirely on whether the judge requires assistance of evidence requiring specialists skill. In supporting this assertions in the case of R v Cooper [1998] EWCA Crim 2258 the court stated that experts opinions are admissible in order to furnish the court with scientific information, and if the judge can form an opinion without help, then the experts opinion would be inadmissible. A general rule in law is that in adducing evidence, the evidence must be reliable and relevant. This was considered in the case of O’ Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 that evidence is admissible if it is relevant such that it affects the outcome of the case. In this regard the evidence needs to be logically probative or disapprobative of some matters that requires proof. In simple terms, the evidence is evidence that makes the matter requiring proof more or less probable. Immunity of Expert Witnesses In the past, the expert witnesses enjoyed immunity and as a result, this led them to adduce biased opinions in courts without any fear of prosecution or liability from the system. In most case the immunity from prosecution was a form of privilege extending to all person partaking in the legal proceedings and even in most forms of tort cases. This was the long standing principle in the case of Watson v M’Ewan [1905] AC 480 according to Earl of Halsbury LC that it matters not whether one is a volunteer engaging in administration of justice but his duty is to tell the truth and in respect he is sworn in he is protected. This immunity was reiterated in the case of Stanton v Callaghan [2000] QB 75 according to Chadwick LJ that an expert witness giving evidence in trial is immune from suit in respect to what he says in court and to an extent even the report he tables in court. However, this immunity was abolished in the UK in 2011 in the Supreme Court Case of the UK in Jones v Karney [2011] UKSC 1. In this case the appellant, a driver who was drunk, unlicensed and he knocked down motorcyclist suffered physical injuries and psychiatric consequences. The solicitor instructed a clinical psychologist and a surgeon with the latter to provide a report that the appellant suffered from a posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In the case, the clinical psychologists went ahead to release a second report that the appellant was not suffering from PTSD but depression and some symptoms of PTSD. At the same time the insurer instructed a clinical psychologist who stated that the appellant exaggerated the symptoms. Due to the differences in reports, the judge ordered that the two hold discussions and in their joint report they concluded that the appellant was not suffering from PTSD. Additionally, the defendant expert had formed an opinion that the appellant was deceptive and deceitful in relation to reporting on his symptoms. The appellant was therefore forced to settle for less because his expert signed the joint statement which the expert later disowned. The case on appeal was allowed due to its importance to the public. According to Lord Philips in summing up the objects of immunity in expert witness testimony, it is of paramount importance than an expert gives frank and objective testimony. As set in the precedent in Stanton v Callaghan an expert needs to defend his earlier opinion especially if his revised view is enormously different to his previous opinion. In weighing whether to impose sanction on the expert witness, the court stated that imposing sanctions may deter expert witnesses from testifying in court. Lord Brown on the other hand stated that immunity should be abolished because it would enable experts to come up with concrete reports to assist the court. Reforms in Expert Witness Regulation In New South Wales (NSW) for instance reforms of the code of conduct of witness encompasses imposing a general duty to the court. According to Schedule K of the Supreme Court Rules in NSW, this duty involves binding an expert witness to assist the court impartially in issues that are relevant to his area of expertise. This duty is paramount to the Court and not to the person that retains the expert and at the same time stating that, an expert witness is not an advocate for any party (Gary, 2003). The duty in the reform shows that there is an overriding duty on an expert witness to assist the court impartially. This addresses the issues of partiality because the failure of an expert to act impartially imposes sanctions such as being charged for professional misconduct or having their evidence excluded (Gary, 2003). The reforms also brings into focus the use of expert conferences that enables expert to confer to reach an agreement about issues that bind parties to issues agreed on. In any instance a party needs additional expert witnesses then they need to seek leave of the court to bring in more expert witnesses. The Supreme Court can on its own motion appoint expert witnesses where questions that requires expertise in the court. Reducing bias in expert evidence is a daunting task, but the court can play the role in enhancing adducing evidence that is free from partisanship, independent an unbiased. The courts in adopting a deterrent perspective to potential expert witness that is they should discharge their duties and obligations to assist the court through giving conscientious and objective evidence. Conclusion In conclusion, the use of expert witnesses aims at ensuring that the court is given independent and knowledgeable assistance to the court on issues beyond the scope of comprehension of the court. The practice of hiring expert witnesses by different parties poses chances of apparent bias, conscious or selective bias in the way in which they adduce evidence. The primary way in which bias is experienced arise from the fact that there is a natural instinct that makes expert witness tend to support those who employ them as experts. Additionally, the place of experts in society is closely intertwined with the role of lawyers; however, the courts need to set a threshold to limit the scope and powers of the expert witness in courts. Immunity for expert witnesses has contributed to bias since most experts adduce evidence, they because regardless of their testimony they are immune from prosecution. There are however reforms that need to be undertaken to limit the perceptions of “hired guns” bias in relation to adducing evidence in court. REFERENCES Andrew, L B 2003, ‘The Ethical Medical Expert Witness’ Journal of Medical Licensure and Discipline, vol. 89, no.3, pp. 125 Gary, E 2003, “After Objectivity: Expert Evidence and Procedural Reform”, The Sydney Law Review, vol.25, no.2, pp. 131-154 Gillies, D 1986, “ Opinion Evidence”, Australian Law Journal, vol.60, pp.597 Huber, P 1991, Galieleo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, New York: Basics Books James, C J , & Startwelle, T P 2013, “The Expert Witness in Medical Malpractice Litigation: Through the Looking Glass”, Journal of Child Neurology, vol.28, no.4, pp. 484-501 Karas, J 2010, ‘Standard Bearers’, New Law Journal, pp. 318-319 Lord Woolf, ‘Access to Justice’: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales Zander, M 1997, ‘The Woolf Report: Forwards or Backwards for the New Lord Chancellor?’ Civil Justice Quarterly, vo.16, pp. 302 CASES Abbey National Mortgages plc v Key Surveyors Nationwide Ltd and others [1996] 3 All ER 184 at 191 Abinger v Ashton , 171 R.Eq. 358 Clark v Ryan (1960) 130 CLR 486 Field v Leeds City Council [2000] 1 EGLR 54 Harmony Shipping Co. v Orri [1979] 3 All E.R. 177 Klimoskiv v Walter Authority of W.A (1989) 5 SASR 188 Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trustees Inc v Goldberg (No.3) [2001] 1 WLR 2337 Loveday v Renton and Wellcome Foundation Ltd (1988) Meadow v General Medical Council National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68 O’ Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 Polivitte Ltd v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Plc [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 379 Slater v Bake Tracy Peerage Case (1843) 8 ER 7000 r and Stapleton (1767) 2 Wils KB 359 Stanton v Callaghan [2000] 2 QB 75 Toth v Jarman [2006] 4 All ER 1276 Tracy Peerage Case (1843) 8 ER 700 R v Gough [1993] HL 646 at 672 R (PD) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal [2004] EWCA Civ 311 Re Medicaments (No.2) [2001] 1 WLR 700 Wallshire Ltd v Aarons [1989] 1 EGLR 147 Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 WLR 246 , 256 Read More