• 3 months ago
Panorama.S2014E23.Undercover.Justice.For.Sale
Transcript
00:00Got a court case looming? Need an expert witness who'll help you hide the truth for money?
00:08Sorry this is costing you an arm and a leg.
00:10Well, I think it's probably, I think it's probably going to be worth it.
00:13You realise, haven't you?
00:15Yeah, yeah.
00:16We hire a handwriting expert prepared to turn a blind eye to unhelpful evidence.
00:21I'd rather not have this.
00:23Not that one.
00:24No.
00:25Caught on camera, we ask a CCTV expert for help.
00:29Because obviously you've discussed with me that it's likely you've been yourself in the footage.
00:33Yeah, yeah.
00:34But yeah, we need to steer as far away from that as possible.
00:38We meet the animal expert, who advises us to lie.
00:41No, no, Christ, don't tell him the truth, I'm really sorry.
00:44OK, all right, OK.
00:46If expert evidence can't be relied on in court, where does that leave justice?
00:51The breaches of duty are, have they been carried through into the court process, very serious.
00:58Tonight on Panorama, we ask, is justice for sale?
01:08Expert witnesses are a vital part of our legal system.
01:12From fingerprints to voice identification, medical matters to CCTV,
01:17there are thousands of experts being paid to give evidence in court.
01:21And yet, as an industry, they are almost entirely unregulated.
01:27Some of the most notorious miscarriages of justice have had suspect expert evidence at their heart.
01:41Two well-known cases are those of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark,
01:45both wrongfully convicted of murdering their children on the strength of dubious expert evidence.
01:50But the problem doesn't stop there.
01:53I think there should be healthy scepticism about experts,
01:57because if a jury relies on what is in fact unreliable evidence,
02:01but which is dressed up as science, that's a classic case for a miscarriage of justice.
02:06So unreliable evidence being presented in court can send the wrong people to jail.
02:12But what about the experts themselves? How much should we trust them?
02:17Expert witnesses are bound by ethical duties and legal rules
02:21designed to ensure their impartiality.
02:24But are they sticking to them?
02:26Unfortunately, there are people looking for a payday,
02:29and they will say what they are expected to say.
02:33And history has shown many of the miscarriages of justice involving expert evidence
02:38has been where a witness has become too partisan for one side or indeed for the other.
02:44Now I'm going to put their integrity to the test.
02:48I'm going to approach a number of expert witnesses in a variety of disciplines
02:52and do the one thing that most clients don't do, confess my guilt.
02:57I'm starting with Professor Barry Peachey, an animal scientist.
03:01One of his specialities is these animals, badgers.
03:06Badger campaigner Monica Ward is one person who's crossed swords with him.
03:11In badger cases, he's often called to give expert evidence
03:16because he's got a good reputation of getting them off.
03:22Monica Ward was called by the police to attend a set several years ago
03:26where three men with dogs had been caught digging.
03:29They said that they'd just been out walking and the dog had run into a set, which is ludicrous.
03:33In fact, they shouldn't have been there. There's no footpath there.
03:37Barry Peachey wrote a report saying it was a disused set which helped clear the defendants.
03:43It really swung the case. Because of Mr Peachey's evidence,
03:46we can't prove that it was an active badger set.
03:52I want to meet Professor Peachey myself, so I'm going undercover,
03:56using the name Geoff Atkinson.
03:59I've found a set which I know badgers use because I've filmed them.
04:07I've already told the professor that I've deliberately let a dog into this set
04:11as a badger, an offence that could get me six months in jail.
04:18I've also told him that I think I've been filmed by a passer-by and fear prosecution.
04:24We meet at the set.
04:26Hi, I'm Geoff.
04:28Nice to meet you.
04:30This is the scene of a fearsome crime, isn't it?
04:33I'll just tell you what happened again.
04:35We were coming up there, a couple of dogs, my friend's dogs, Andy's dogs,
04:40they've seen a badger about here and then let the dogs off the lead
04:44and they've just chased a bit and it's disappeared.
04:47I'm as certain as I can be that it's gone in that hole there.
04:51And then, obviously, really stupidly, we've let the terrier down there.
04:55Good. Now, the good news, presumably, and please tell me it is good news,
04:59you are not standing there holding a spade or a shovel.
05:02No, we didn't have any spades.
05:04You didn't have anything on you at all?
05:06No.
05:08Looking at this, I'm telling you now, this is a heaving badger set.
05:12So, there's no chance of arguing that the set isn't active.
05:16That doesn't sound good for my defence.
05:18But even though there may be a witness, Barry is a man with a plan.
05:22The good news is that you look as if you may be in a very good position
05:26to paint this as a pure accident.
05:28Yeah.
05:30That is, if he didn't see you...
05:32Yeah.
05:34So he's advising me to say it was an accident,
05:37even though that would be a lie.
05:39I understand, obviously, it could have ended in damage to a badger,
05:42and I've looked up the law since then,
05:44so I realise we've definitely broken it on at least one or two counts.
05:47Oh, absolutely, yeah. Yeah.
05:49I mean, that's right, but what you've done and what they can prove
05:52are two entirely different things.
05:54Your defence in this case isn't that it isn't a heaving badger set.
05:57Your defence is that this was a pure accident.
05:59In what way? What do you mean?
06:01Well, you were walking your dog along,
06:03and the dog suddenly saw a badger and dived down a hole.
06:06What you were trying to do was get it back.
06:08Yeah, so we don't say that we'd put it down there?
06:10No, of course not.
06:12Because if it goes down by accident, that's not an offence.
06:14Well, that's right, but you have to persuade the court of that.
06:16OK.
06:18We're in a very good position to persuade the court of that,
06:20because you don't have any digging gear with you.
06:22So Barry Peachey, the man who has just made up a false defence for me,
06:26has agreed to write an expert report that I can use in court.
06:30The question is, what will it say?
06:33Basically, the report is going to say it's a heaving badger set.
06:37That doesn't actually matter,
06:39because we're in no position to say anything else.
06:41But what the report will not say,
06:43or will not allude to in any way,
06:45is the defences that we will put forward for you,
06:48that this was an entire accident.
06:50Sorry, when you say it won't allude to that...
06:52No, no, no.
06:54Because what is most important is that I'm an independent expert.
06:57It is not for me to put up your defences.
06:59Yeah, all right, OK.
07:01What you will put up your defences
07:03must be unknown to the prosecution.
07:05OK, so I owe you some... You do.
07:07..some readies, don't I? Yeah.
07:09The resourceful professor doesn't come cheap.
07:12Barry Peachey's fee is £1,000 up front,
07:15with another £1,223 to follow.
07:21Professor Peachey's behaviour seems anything but appropriate.
07:24But what will one of the most senior QCs around,
07:27and an expert in legal ethics, think about it?
07:31What Mr Peachey is doing here
07:33is effectively acting as an advisor to you and advocate.
07:37And the role of an expert is not to be advocate or advisor.
07:42And it is most certainly not to create for you
07:47a defence in circumstances where you have factually told him
07:50that such a defence wouldn't operate.
07:53So he's coming up with a lie, effectively?
07:55Well, he's coming up with something which...
07:58..he shouldn't be doing.
08:00And if you persist in it, you would be running a false defence.
08:06I want to find out if Professor Peachey is a one-off.
08:09I'm going to look at some other experts,
08:11starting with handwriting analysts.
08:13If you need to find out who really wrote something,
08:16these are the people you turn to.
08:18I've written a letter which sounds a bit threatening.
08:21And I'm going to say it's part of an ongoing dispute with my neighbour.
08:26I'll say that I've tried to disguise my handwriting,
08:29but he still thinks it's me and he's going to sue.
08:32Again, I'm going to test the integrity of the experts
08:35by asking for their help while confessing I'm guilty.
08:41I contact Simone Tennant, a graphologist of 20 years' experience.
08:45By the time I meet her, I've already told her my story over the phone.
08:49That is the letter that's now the bane of my life.
08:53Erm...
08:55As I say, you'll have to turn my word for it,
08:58there's this guy...
09:00We were at the end of our tellers when I wrote that,
09:03and I do regret writing it,
09:05cos it's obviously causing me lots of grief.
09:08I tell her I'd really like a court report
09:11which casts doubt on me being the author of the letter.
09:14Handwriting experts work by comparing examples of your own writing
09:18with the disputed document.
09:20I've brought along half a dozen examples of my real handwriting,
09:24including some crosswords.
09:27I'd rather not have this.
09:29Not that one? No.
09:31Too many consistent characteristics. OK.
09:34You don't want to shoot yourself in the foot? No, absolutely.
09:37Having sifted the evidence in my favour,
09:40Simone Tennant gives me her verdict.
09:42There always has to be an element of doubt.
09:44You can't go ahead and get something conclusive
09:47unless you're there to actually witness it. Yes.
09:49So, yeah, don't be alarmed, obviously,
09:51cos I'll have to go ahead and say there are consistent characteristics.
09:54Yes, and I realise that, yeah.
09:56But at the same time, well, it will be inconclusive
09:59because, you know, there just isn't enough evidence. Great.
10:02So Simone Tennant agrees to prepare a court report
10:05which will say the authorship of the letter is inconclusive,
10:08even though I've told her it's me.
10:11What about the fact that she's handing me back a piece of evidence
10:15saying that it's going to be unhelpful to my case?
10:19She is clearly causing to be omitted a material fact
10:23and she knows it's material
10:25because it doesn't help the thesis which she is going for, namely,
10:29this is inconclusive.
10:31Near the top of the tree in the world of handwriting analysis
10:35is Michael Ansell, a forensic document examiner.
10:39A former deputy head of the Metropolitan Police's documents section,
10:43he now combines his work as an expert witness with university teaching.
10:47I've sent an undercover colleague
10:49to present him with the same nasty neighbour scenario
10:52I gave to Simone Tennant.
10:54Thank you for seeing me.
10:56He claims it is me that wrote it.
10:58Of course, as you know, I did actually write it,
11:01but it was in a moment of complete, total anger.
11:04This is what I don't get, how he managed to guess
11:07that I wrote it in the first place
11:09because I thought that I'd written it
11:11in such a way that it wasn't my writing at all.
11:14The handwriting expert will go even further than the last one
11:17and say there's strong evidence our reporter didn't write the letter,
11:21despite being told that he had.
11:23It would be one or other of the negatives.
11:27Likelihood is it is the most, you know, strong evidence not.
11:32Strong evidence not? Not, yeah.
11:35So far, we've met three experts
11:37and all have indicated they'll ignore our guilt.
11:41An expert owes his or her duty to the court
11:45and must be independent.
11:48The expert mustn't descend into the fray
11:51and start selecting facts to suit a case,
11:54omitting facts to suit a case,
11:56or advising the party retaining them on how to run their case
12:00so as to get the best prospect of a result.
12:06These days, CCTV cameras are watching our every move.
12:11And when a crime happens, it's often captured on film.
12:15But that doesn't always mean it's easy to see what's going on
12:18or who's doing it.
12:20And that's where the experts come in.
12:23Time to create some footage of my own.
12:27This clip of film supposedly shows me damaging my neighbour's property.
12:31What will an expert in CCTV analysis make of it?
12:36I contact Neil Miller, a former soldier
12:39who's making his living as an expert analyst in CCTV.
12:42I've told him from the outset it's me in the footage
12:45and that my neighbour is threatening to sue.
12:48Because, obviously, you discussed with me
12:50that it's likely to be yourself in the footage.
12:53But, yeah, we need to steer as far away from that as possible.
12:58He says he'll prepare a court report for me
13:01but won't lie in court if asked whether I told him it was me.
13:04If it came to court, I would be very reluctant
13:07to go in and stand there and say that it's definitely not you
13:11because, obviously, you've told me that.
13:13A lot of the time, experts don't need to appear in court.
13:16Their reports are often evidence enough.
13:18So what they put in them is crucial.
13:20Can I just clarify one thing?
13:22You're not going to put in the report that I told you it was me?
13:25No, no, no.
13:27Two days later, I travel to York to meet with Neil Miller in a hotel bar.
13:33So, things are not good then?
13:35For me?
13:36Yeah, down there?
13:37I show him the footage and he gives me his expert opinion.
13:41You can't see things like whether or not you have a cupid's bow,
13:44a beard, anything like that.
13:46The one thing I would say is, obviously, you've got a dark area here
13:50which laterally looks like a long sideburn.
13:52So, I mean, that generally could be a long sideburn
13:55or it could be the start of the beard.
13:57But they would have to be things that would say...
13:59We can't confirm it.
14:00Yes, yes.
14:01Because, I mean, obviously, that's essential for me, isn't it?
14:05The report has some...
14:07Some element of doubt on it.
14:09Yeah, exactly.
14:10Well, that's fine.
14:11He confirms that his report will be fully court-worthy.
14:16Generally, it's just statements of truth and stuff like that.
14:18It's a court-worthy document.
14:20You should be able to go straight in with this.
14:22Obviously, I take on board what you said,
14:24that you'd rather not actually have to give evidence in person
14:27for the reason that, you know, I told you it was me.
14:32But let me just make sure I understand this,
14:35because that doesn't stop me from putting it in, though, does it?
14:38No, it doesn't, no.
14:39OK.
14:40But he's still uncomfortable with the prospect
14:42of being cross-examined in court.
14:44I am cold.
14:45You know, it's a dodgy environment at the end
14:48because I don't want to jeopardise myself.
14:50I understand, yeah.
14:51And just with us not talking about that, really.
14:54Yeah, sure, no, that's fine by me.
14:55It comes to it, it comes to it,
14:56and then we'll just have to play it as it goes.
14:58OK.
14:59He goes to great lengths to record my every feature
15:02in order to compare me to the CCTV.
15:05He even videos my way of walking.
15:08Right then, I think that's all, sir.
15:10Great, brilliant.
15:11Well, you've certainly done a thorough job so far.
15:14I seriously would advise you, really,
15:16is to go for a free R session with a solicitor
15:18and just say to them,
15:19look, this is what I've done thus far,
15:21it's not going to cost you anything,
15:23and just get an idea of what rights you have, really.
15:26I've got no qualms with you doing this.
15:28You're doing the right thing, really,
15:30apart from the obvious bit.
15:32Yeah.
15:34The obvious bit is, it's me in the footage,
15:37and I've told him that.
15:40Neil Miller has named his price £1,360.
15:45Now it's just a matter of waiting for his report
15:48and those of all the other experts I've commissioned.
15:52Chris Dickinson is a solicitor
15:54who's had cause to doubt the integrity
15:56of some expert witnesses.
15:58It all started when one of his clients had a car accident.
16:02Three days later, she was out shopping with a friend
16:05and fell into her shopping trolley
16:07and had to be helped out.
16:09Now, she remembered nothing of that at all.
16:14Because she couldn't remember,
16:16it suggested she may have suffered a head injury
16:19in the earlier crash.
16:21Lawyers for the other driver
16:23appointed an expert witness, a neurologist, to assess her.
16:27Her memory of the shopping trolley incident, or lack of it,
16:30was key to her claim for compensation.
16:33She made it absolutely clear to him
16:35that she didn't remember that event.
16:37But when he wrote his report,
16:39he said that she did remember falling into that shopping trolley.
16:43Fortunately for her, she taped the meeting for her records.
16:47So when Tesco picked up wine for a friend
16:50and then you toppled into the trolley,
16:53apparently, I don't remember any of this,
16:56so I'm just having this second hand.
17:01The case went to court.
17:03She was claiming compensation
17:05for a brain injury suffered during the car crash.
17:08The defence was fighting her claim
17:10based on the expert's evidence.
17:12Because she had made a recording
17:15she was able to prove
17:17that her evidence to him had been accurate.
17:20She was entirely honest.
17:22The expert's evidence had misled the court.
17:25She won her case
17:27and was awarded half a million pounds in compensation.
17:30There are a few experts
17:32that rely quite heavily
17:34on one or two insurers for their income.
17:37Those experts know what generally pleases their insurance client.
17:41For example, a report that says
17:43there's nothing wrong with the person.
17:45It's several weeks since I started my investigation.
17:48The expert reports I commissioned for use in court
17:51are ready to be collected.
17:53Remember, I'm the paying client,
17:55so will the reports say what I want them to
17:58or will they tell the whole truth?
18:02First, Simone Tennant,
18:04the handwriting expert who rejected unhelpful evidence.
18:07Hi, Joe.
18:09The reason why I've gone ahead
18:11and obviously I've gone inconclusive...
18:13Good to her word, her report says it's inconclusive
18:16whether I wrote the letter,
18:18even though I told her that I had.
18:20And there's no reference at all
18:22to my confession in her report,
18:24which cost me £500.
18:26She says she doubts very much
18:28that my case will make it to court,
18:30but what if it does?
18:32If it does go to court,
18:34will you be able to potentially give evidence?
18:37Of course, yeah, with that as well.
18:39The $64 million question they might ask you is,
18:42do you think I wrote it?
18:44But you would presumably...
18:46I'll stick to my opinion, which is inconclusive.
18:49Yeah. I don't know.
18:51You know, that is the bottom line.
18:53What's your opinion on Simone Tennant's report?
18:56The report is clearly not a proper report
19:00for an expert to present.
19:02And she concludes the report by saying,
19:06The opinions I have expressed
19:08represent my true and complete professional opinions
19:11on the matters to which they refer.
19:14That's clearly incorrect.
19:16Simone Tennant did not reply to our written requests
19:19for her to respond to the findings of our investigation.
19:24Michael Ansell, the forensic document examiner,
19:27also has a report ready.
19:29And this is the court-ready report, is it?
19:32Yes, that's the court-ready report.
19:34The important thing is the report's conclusion.
19:37Now, I've said there, the finding of strong evidence item
19:40I was not written by Mr Atkinson means...
19:43He's saying there's strong evidence that we didn't write it,
19:46but he's been told that we did.
19:48So if I call you up as witness
19:50and they ask you, the opposition powers ask you,
19:53do you think Mr Atkinson wrote that note?
19:56How would you...?
19:58Well, I'd say there's no evidence,
20:00there's no handwriting evidence
20:02that he did.
20:04What if he's asked the most awkward question of all?
20:08If the bouncer then turned around and said to you,
20:11did Mr Atkinson tell you he had written the note,
20:14what can you say to that?
20:16Well, I'd say no. I'd say no.
20:19OK. I'd say no.
20:21Michael Ansell charges us £216, including VAT, for his report,
20:26which contains no reference at all to the fact
20:30that he's been told who actually wrote the letter.
20:33What can you say about Michael Ansell's conduct?
20:36Well, in his case, you had told him several times
20:40that you had written the disputed document,
20:43and in his case, the statement of truth is misleading,
20:47and by providing the report to you,
20:50so that you can use it in court,
20:53he has failed to discharge his duty.
20:55Michael Ansell said he is not a hired gun
20:58and that he hadn't been paid in advance.
21:01He said he did hear our undercover reporter say
21:04he wrote the anonymous note,
21:06but as he'd already been told it was a disputed document,
21:09he didn't at any point consider
21:11that the reporter meant he had written it.
21:14I've also received a report from Neil Miller, the CCTV expert.
21:18He's only written that the CCTV evidence
21:21offers moderate support to me being the person in the footage,
21:25but that's as high as he puts it,
21:27even though I've told him more than once that it is me.
21:30His report even suggests that the person in the footage
21:33could be someone else.
21:35What can you say about Neil Miller's conduct?
21:38One rather significant piece of information was
21:41that you had told him you were the person on the CCTV,
21:44which is completely omitted,
21:46so he is in serious breach of duty
21:50by giving you a report which he was prepared to have presented to a court.
21:57Neil Miller told us that he acted entirely properly throughout.
22:00He appropriately limited his report to an analysis
22:03of the evidence and matters within his expertise.
22:06He said he wasn't instructed by solicitors,
22:08that he didn't treat what he was told by us
22:10as part of his instructions,
22:12that he never accepts at face value what clients tell him,
22:15and that his report was unbiased.
22:17He said he'd advised us that he would have to truthfully
22:20tell the court what he'd been told.
22:23Professor Peachy has also sent me his report.
22:26As expected, it states that the badger set he examined for me
22:30is large and active.
22:32I meet him at a motorway service station near his home
22:35to pay him the balance of his fee.
22:37Let me give you this anyway, sorry.
22:39There's the balance. Thank you very much.
22:42I'm sorry this is costing you an arm and a leg.
22:45Well, I think it's probably going to be worth it.
22:47You realise, don't you?
22:49Yeah, I have, yeah.
22:50You know why I'm here, don't you?
22:53You have to get a grip on this right from day one.
22:58His report twice says that it was not at all obvious
23:01to any casual passer-by that there was a badger set nearby.
23:05As he included that to help tee up the false defence,
23:09he suggested that the dogs chased a badger by accident.
23:12That is relevant, isn't it?
23:14It's not at all obvious to a casual passer-by
23:16that there was a badger set nearby.
23:18It can't be seen from the road, yeah?
23:20Yeah.
23:21So that's something...
23:22That's why I put it in.
23:24Now it seems we are getting to the heart of Professor Peachy's plan
23:28to help me avoid a conviction for interfering with a badger set.
23:32So it's quite likely that if it does go to court,
23:34we will be at...
23:35Well, it's in my interest to call you, isn't it?
23:37You will.
23:38Oh, without a doubt.
23:39Yeah.
23:40Yeah, because I shall be answering questions
23:43along the lines of,
23:45would Joe Public have known this was a badger set
23:49and I should come out with the trite answer
23:51that I always come out with,
23:52no, well, Joe Public doesn't know a badger set.
23:54Yeah, yeah, yeah.
23:55Why would they?
23:56If you're saying it's an accident,
23:57they're asking me whether or not I think it's a credible accident.
24:00Answer yes, highly likely.
24:03And if the police do knock on my door,
24:05Barry Peachy says he'll find me a solicitor.
24:08I'm curious to know how open he thinks I should be with a lawyer.
24:11Should I talk to them in the same way I'm talking to you?
24:13I mean, is...
24:14No.
24:15No.
24:16Christ, don't go on the street.
24:18Oh, right, OK.
24:19So there we have it, Professor Peachy's bottom line.
24:22Don't tell the truth, even to your own lawyer.
24:26So if our badger story had been real,
24:28could the Professor's behaviour
24:30even have put him on the wrong side of the law?
24:33It's very serious indeed,
24:35because by reference to what you had told him,
24:39he knew it wasn't highly likely that this was an accident.
24:43On the contrary, this was, from what you had told him,
24:46as he indicates in the tape, a criminal offence.
24:49Now, in real life, if two people put their heads together
24:55in order to concoct evidence to be placed before the court
25:00which is false,
25:02then that gives rise to the potential criminal offence
25:07of perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice.
25:11Monica Ward is the badger campaigner
25:13who experienced Professor Peachy in court.
25:18Get away from telling the truth.
25:20Yeah.
25:22He's telling you to lie.
25:24He's telling you to lie in court, isn't he?
25:27That's all he's doing, yeah.
25:29To get your... All he can do is...
25:31Disgusting, yeah.
25:33Gosh.
25:35I'm appalled, because it does throw into doubt,
25:38his so-called independent evidence, doesn't it?
25:41We asked all the experts we investigated
25:44to respond to what we've found.
25:46Professor Peachy wanted to explain himself in person.
25:49You see, your essential problem to me is that I'm not a cook,
25:53and you should be after those who are.
25:55You, on nine separate occasions in the first meeting,
25:59suggested that we, quote, paint it as an accident.
26:03Yes. Well, indeed it was, and that's entirely true.
26:07Well, indeed it was, and that's entirely right.
26:09But how can it be an accident if I'd broken the law
26:12by releasing the dogs off the lead and putting them into the set?
26:15Because very often I go to cases like this,
26:17where people tell me they've broken the law,
26:19when in fact they haven't.
26:21But you'd agree that I broke the law.
26:23Well, it's not for me to agree or disagree.
26:25But you did. You did agree. You said,
26:27yes, absolutely, you've broken the law.
26:29It sounds as if you had, certainly.
26:31So, given that you are, as you put it,
26:33and I was about to quote you this anyway,
26:35that I'm an independent expert,
26:37it is not for me to put up your defences.
26:39Exactly right.
26:40The fact that I will put up your defences
26:42must be unknown to the prosecution.
26:44Indeed.
26:45Sorry, how do you reconcile that?
26:47Well, I'm not...
26:48It is not for the prosecution to know
26:50that we've had any sort of discussion at all,
26:52because we don't know what their allegations against you are.
26:55At the end of the day, it clearly won't be me
26:57who's putting up your defences.
26:59It'll be your solicitor who's putting up your defences.
27:02Professor Peachy told us all his reports are fair and unbiased.
27:06The one he provided to us was truthful and accurate,
27:09and he had no financial incentive not to tell the truth.
27:12He said the facts of the incident hadn't been made clear to him,
27:16and that he would never lie in court.
27:21So, we've met a CCTV expert
27:24who said it could be dodgy for him in the witness box,
27:27but who sold me a helpful court report anyway.
27:30A handwriting expert willing to ignore unfavourable evidence,
27:33another who says he would lie in court,
27:36and an animal expert who suggested a totally false defence.
27:40Between them, they have produced reports for hundreds of cases.
27:45What's your overall view on what we've shown you?
27:48Every so often, one comes across experts
27:52who may seek to subvert the rules.
27:55My own experience is that that is comparatively rare.
28:00Nevertheless, seeing these four examples is surprising,
28:06and in each of these instances,
28:09it seems to me that the breaches of duty are,
28:13have they been carried through into the court process, very serious.
28:19Our investigation is only a snapshot,
28:22but of the nine experts we contacted,
28:24only one didn't want to get involved once we had confessed our guilt.
28:30The government says it's tightening the rules
28:32on expert testimony in criminal cases.
28:35But this investigation suggests the industry needs properly regulating
28:39to guarantee the integrity of experts
28:42and ensure that justice can't be bought.
28:59For more information visit www.fema.gov