Arboricultural Exert Witness

[Dealga]

The recent case of Scott v Atkins (available as a download on AIE) brings into sharp focus the need for Arboriculturists to take the issue of offering themselves as 'Experts' very seriously. In this case the Judge re-emphasised the need for experts to be independent and to understand that their 'duty' as experts is to the Court and not to any party to the case. He also addressed the issue of interference in expert evidence by Solicitors and Counsel. Anyone hoping to work in this area must read this judgment. The tragedy of this case is that the expert that was criticized was an Arboriculturist. Not since the Patterson v Humberside case in the 1990s has Arboricultural evidence taken such adverse criticism from the Court. While I am not offering any comment, adverse or otherwise, on the matter or the expert, I am saddened that in 2008 our industry is at the end of Court criticism. This is especially sad given the amount of time and effort that has gone into raising industry standards to the point where Arboriculturists are now a recognized 'Chartered Profession', and by this I mean Chartered Arboriculturists through the ICF and not Chartered Environmentalists through the AA. I don't know how many contributors to this Forum know, but as of this year, Arboriculturists that obtain the Charter through the ICF can now call themselves 'Chartered Arborists'.

The lesson from this case is, that if you want to work in this field, i.e. as an 'expert witness', you must undergo training, such as that available through either The Academy of Experts or The Expert Witness Ins-ute. both bodies offer extensive training in all aspects from gathering and writing up evidence, expert report writing, giving oral evidence and cross examination. This type of training will also soon be available through the Consulting Arborist Society (CAS). This is very demanding and exacting work and it is not enough to have the knowledge or the qualifications. Not every one who is highly qualified or knowledgeable is capable of this type of work, it takes a particular temprement to do it. A Barrister once said to me "I'll settle for technically adequate as long as s/he is a good witness". Lesson, jopin the Academy and / or the Ins-ute!

This brings me to one of my soap box issues. Lots of people in our industry call them selves Consultants simply because they give clients advice. In fact very few out there are Consultants. To be a Consultant requires more than qualifications and knowledge, it also requires a lot of experience. A wise man once said, "a consultant under 45 is an oxymoron". Why should our industry tolerate newly qualified and inexperienced people calling themselves Consultants? No other profession does? When a person qualifies with their HND or Foundation Degree or their BSc they are 'Technicians' perhaps 'junior Consulting people if they have some experience but no more than that. As one works and becomes experienced one moves from technician/consulting to consulting/senior consulting and then, after a lot of time, to consultant and the step between senior consulting and Consultant is a very big one. Examples from other professions might assist the understanding of this concept.

1. In the legal profession, Solicitors are Technicians/Consulting and they take advice/opinions from Barristers who are senior consulting and the in turn take advice from Queens Counsel who are consultants. It take son average 18-20 years for a Barrister to attain QC status. Judges, who have themselves been QCs are Experts!
2 In the Medical Profession house doctors/GPs are technicians/consulting. The next rung is 'Registrar' or senior consulting and Registrars have to work alongside Consultants for may years before they can become Consultants and even then they have to undergo an examination.

Yet we in Arboriculture allow anyone to refer to themselves as a 'Consultant', simply because they give advice. And having conferred this -le upon themselves they they begin to call themselves 'Experts'! Our trade associations condone this and carry on regardless. At least if one wants the Charter there are examinations to go through and then perhaps once could aspire to the -le 'Consultant'. The Atkins v Scott case should make us pause and think. A lot of people have spent a lot of time and effort raising the standards in Arboriculture, only to have all that work undermined because we fail to police our own industry. This is why the AA and ISA will always be no more than 'Trade Associations', the concept of professionalism seems to have passed them by! The AA in particular is guilty because rather than encourage its senior and professional members to obtain a Charter from the only body that the Privy Council recognizes as holding te Charter for Arboriculture, it colluded with another vaguely related body to provide a 'Charter', (though not one for Trees, Forestry or Arboriculture) from another body that is hungry for membership. It turned it's back on the true charter, why? ... I'll let you figure that one out.

Later

[masterwoodsman]

I have only just come across this post, thanks.

this is an area of interest to me as i am currently trying to climb the ladder as it where.

the points you make increase my feeling that aa status etc doesnt always mean your at the top of your field!

As my study goes deeper i am starting to see the difference between skill and knowledge, being capable and being knowledgable.

i was arrogant for many years i felt I had nothing to learn, but then I opened pandoras box and have since learned i know nothing, 21 years of hands on, it means a lot, but nothing at the same time.

I am proud of myself at this point because i have recognised the lack in me and am doing something about it, and it may be some time before my arrogance returns as you say there is a huge valley between proffesional, and expert.

[Ian]

Dealga,

What would be the best step by step process in achieving the status as an experts witness  ? I've had a look at the EWI web site and it seems that you need to have been an 'expert' in court prior to applying.

Many Thanks

Ian

[masterwoodsman]

That made for interesting reading, and I confess i have for a long time felt embarressed for my industry, as you say it is insane for a newly qualified BHc to have "expert witness" as one of thier abilities. No other industry would tolerate that, and a 30 year old student of arboriculture should be laughed out of court.

I am doing my FDSc now, in three years I too will have the "ability" to be an expert witness but i wouldnt feel even close to being "proffesional" in this area without matching my twenty years on the tools with twenty years on the consulting game including 10 years of personal research and study in a specific area of arboriculture, in my case this will be Mycological arboriculture.

Court is the arena of old wise men, and that is not because its the old establishment, its because old wise men make for wisdom, and that's needed in court, 30 years in should be considered a minimum. I still have 8 to go!