0:00:02 > 0:00:04Got a court case looming?
0:00:04 > 0:00:08Need an expert witness who'll help you hide the truth, for money?
0:00:13 > 0:00:16I have, yes.
0:00:16 > 0:00:19We hire a handwriting expert prepared to turn a blind eye
0:00:19 > 0:00:21to unhelpful evidence.
0:00:25 > 0:00:27Caught on camera?
0:00:27 > 0:00:29We ask a CCTV expert for help.
0:00:38 > 0:00:41We meet the animal expert who advises us to lie.
0:00:46 > 0:00:49If expert evidence can't be relied on in court,
0:00:49 > 0:00:52where does that leave justice?
0:00:52 > 0:00:54The breaches of duty are,
0:00:54 > 0:00:59had they been carried through into the court process, very serious.
0:00:59 > 0:01:01Tonight on Panorama,
0:01:01 > 0:01:03we ask - is justice for sale?
0:01:03 > 0:01:05POLICE SIRENS ECHO
0:01:08 > 0:01:13Expert witnesses are a vital part of our legal system.
0:01:13 > 0:01:16From fingerprints to voice identification,
0:01:16 > 0:01:17medical matters to CCTV,
0:01:17 > 0:01:21there are thousands of experts being paid to give evidence in court
0:01:21 > 0:01:26and yet, as an industry, they are almost entirely unregulated.
0:01:26 > 0:01:29Some of the most notorious miscarriages of justice
0:01:29 > 0:01:33have had suspect expert evidence at their heart.
0:01:33 > 0:01:36'A mother serving a life sentence for murdering her two baby sons
0:01:36 > 0:01:40'has walked free from court after her conviction was overturned...'
0:01:40 > 0:01:43Two well-known cases are those of Angela Cannings
0:01:43 > 0:01:46and Sally Clark, both wrongfully convicted of murdering
0:01:46 > 0:01:50their children on the strength of dubious expert evidence.
0:01:50 > 0:01:53But the problem doesn't stop there.
0:01:53 > 0:01:57I think there should be a healthy scepticism about experts,
0:01:57 > 0:02:02because if a jury relies on what is, in fact, unreliable evidence,
0:02:02 > 0:02:03but which is dressed up as science,
0:02:03 > 0:02:06that's a classic case for a miscarriage of justice.
0:02:06 > 0:02:09So, unreliable evidence being presented in court
0:02:09 > 0:02:12can send the wrong people to jail.
0:02:12 > 0:02:14But what about the experts themselves?
0:02:14 > 0:02:16How much should we trust them?
0:02:17 > 0:02:20Expert witnesses are bound by ethical duties
0:02:20 > 0:02:24and legal rules designed to ensure their impartiality.
0:02:24 > 0:02:26But are they sticking to them?
0:02:26 > 0:02:29Unfortunately, there are people looking for a payday
0:02:29 > 0:02:33and they will say what they are expected to say
0:02:33 > 0:02:37and history has shown that many of the miscarriages of justice
0:02:37 > 0:02:40involving expert evidence has been where a witness has become
0:02:40 > 0:02:43too partisan for one side or indeed the other.
0:02:45 > 0:02:48Now I'm going to put their integrity to the test.
0:02:48 > 0:02:50I'm going to approach a number of expert witnesses
0:02:50 > 0:02:52in a variety of disciplines
0:02:52 > 0:02:56and do the one thing that most clients don't do - confess my guilt.
0:02:57 > 0:03:01I'm starting with Professor Barry Peachey, an animal scientist.
0:03:01 > 0:03:05One of his specialities is these animals, badgers.
0:03:06 > 0:03:08Badger campaigner Monica Ward
0:03:08 > 0:03:11is one person who's crossed swords with him.
0:03:11 > 0:03:15In badger cases, he's often called to give expert evidence
0:03:15 > 0:03:21because of, you know, he's got a good reputation of getting them off.
0:03:21 > 0:03:24Monica Ward was called by the police to attend a sett
0:03:24 > 0:03:28several years ago, where three men with dogs had been caught digging.
0:03:28 > 0:03:30They said that they had just been out walking the dog
0:03:30 > 0:03:33and ran into a sett, which is ludicrous.
0:03:33 > 0:03:36In fact, they shouldn't have been there. There's no footpath there.
0:03:36 > 0:03:40Barry Peachey wrote a report saying it was a disused sett,
0:03:40 > 0:03:42which helped clear the defendants.
0:03:42 > 0:03:46It really swung the case. Because of Mr Peachey's evidence,
0:03:46 > 0:03:49we can't prove that it was an active badger sett.
0:03:52 > 0:03:54I want to meet Professor Peachey myself,
0:03:54 > 0:03:59so I am going undercover, using the name Geoff Atkinson.
0:03:59 > 0:04:02I found a sett which I know badgers use, because I filmed them.
0:04:06 > 0:04:09I've already told the professor that I have deliberately
0:04:09 > 0:04:11let a dog into this sett in pursuit of a badger,
0:04:11 > 0:04:14an offence that could get me six months in jail.
0:04:18 > 0:04:20I've also told him that I think
0:04:20 > 0:04:23I've been filmed by a passer-by and fear prosecution.
0:04:24 > 0:04:26We meet at the sett.
0:05:13 > 0:05:16So there's no chance of arguing that the sett isn't active.
0:05:16 > 0:05:18That doesn't sound good for my defence.
0:05:18 > 0:05:22But even though there may be a witness, Barry is a man with a plan.
0:05:34 > 0:05:37So he's advising me to say it was an accident,
0:05:37 > 0:05:39even though that would be a lie.
0:06:22 > 0:06:26So, Barry Peachey, the man who has just made up a false defence for me,
0:06:26 > 0:06:30has agreed to write an expert report that I can use in court.
0:06:30 > 0:06:32The question is, what will it say?
0:07:09 > 0:07:12The resourceful professor doesn't come cheap.
0:07:12 > 0:07:15Barry Peachey's fee is £1,000 upfront,
0:07:15 > 0:07:18with another £1,223 to follow.
0:07:20 > 0:07:25Professor Peachey's behaviour seems anything but appropriate.
0:07:25 > 0:07:27But what will one of the most senior QCs around
0:07:27 > 0:07:30and an expert in legal ethics think about it?
0:07:31 > 0:07:33What Mr Peachey is doing here
0:07:33 > 0:07:38is effectively acting as advisor to you and advocate
0:07:38 > 0:07:43and the role of an expert is not to be advocate or advisor
0:07:43 > 0:07:47and it is most certainly not to create for you a defence
0:07:47 > 0:07:50in circumstances where you have factually told him
0:07:50 > 0:07:53that such a defence wouldn't operate.
0:07:53 > 0:07:55So he's coming up with a lie, effectively?
0:07:55 > 0:08:02Well, he's coming up with something which he shouldn't be doing
0:08:02 > 0:08:06and if you persist in it, you would be running a false defence.
0:08:07 > 0:08:10I want to find out if Professor Peachey is a one-off.
0:08:10 > 0:08:13I'm going to look at some other experts,
0:08:13 > 0:08:15starting with handwriting analysts.
0:08:15 > 0:08:17If you need to find out who really wrote something,
0:08:17 > 0:08:19these are the people you turn to.
0:08:20 > 0:08:23I've written a letter which sounds a bit threatening
0:08:23 > 0:08:27and I'm going to say it's part of an ongoing dispute with my neighbour.
0:08:27 > 0:08:29I'll say that I've tried to disguise my handwriting
0:08:29 > 0:08:33but he still thinks it's me, and he's going to sue.
0:08:33 > 0:08:36Again, I'm going to test the integrity of the experts
0:08:36 > 0:08:39by asking for their help while confessing I'm guilty.
0:08:42 > 0:08:43I contact Simone Tennant,
0:08:43 > 0:08:46a graphologist of 20 years' experience.
0:08:46 > 0:08:47By the time I meet her
0:08:47 > 0:08:50I have already told her my story over the phone.
0:09:09 > 0:09:12I tell her I'd really like a court report which casts doubt on me
0:09:12 > 0:09:14being the author of the letter.
0:09:14 > 0:09:15Handwriting experts work
0:09:15 > 0:09:18by comparing examples of your own writing
0:09:18 > 0:09:20with the disputed document.
0:09:20 > 0:09:24I've brought along half a dozen examples of my real handwriting,
0:09:24 > 0:09:26including some crosswords.
0:09:37 > 0:09:40Having sifted the evidence in my favour,
0:09:40 > 0:09:42Simone Tennant gives me her verdict.
0:10:02 > 0:10:06So Simone Tennant agrees to prepare a court report which will say
0:10:06 > 0:10:09the authorship of the letter is inconclusive
0:10:09 > 0:10:10even though I've told her it's me.
0:10:12 > 0:10:15What about the fact she's handing me back a piece of evidence
0:10:15 > 0:10:18saying that it's going to be unhelpful to my case?
0:10:18 > 0:10:23She is clearly causing to be omitted a material fact
0:10:23 > 0:10:27and she knows it's material because it doesn't help
0:10:27 > 0:10:31the thesis which she is going for, namely, this is inconclusive.
0:10:31 > 0:10:34Near the top of the tree in the world of handwriting analysis
0:10:34 > 0:10:37is Michael Ansell, a forensic document examiner.
0:10:39 > 0:10:42A former deputy head of the Metropolitan Police's document section,
0:10:42 > 0:10:45he now combines his work as an expert witness
0:10:45 > 0:10:47with university teaching.
0:10:47 > 0:10:50I've sent an undercover colleague to present him
0:10:50 > 0:10:53with the same nasty neighbour scenario I gave to Simone Tennant.
0:10:53 > 0:10:54Thank you for seeing me.
0:11:13 > 0:11:17And this handwriting expert will go even further than the last one
0:11:17 > 0:11:19and say there's strong evidence
0:11:19 > 0:11:21our reporter didn't write the letter,
0:11:21 > 0:11:23despite being told that he had.
0:11:35 > 0:11:37So far, we've met three experts
0:11:37 > 0:11:40and all have indicated they'll ignore our guilt.
0:11:41 > 0:11:45An expert owes his or her duty to the court
0:11:45 > 0:11:48and must be independent.
0:11:48 > 0:11:53The expert mustn't descend into the fray and start selecting facts
0:11:53 > 0:11:56to suit a case or omitting facts to suit a case
0:11:56 > 0:12:00or advising the party retaining them on how to run their case
0:12:00 > 0:12:02so as to get the best prospect of a result.
0:12:06 > 0:12:10These days, CCTV cameras are watching our every move.
0:12:10 > 0:12:14And when a crime happens, it's often captured on film.
0:12:14 > 0:12:18But that doesn't always mean it's easy to see what's going on
0:12:18 > 0:12:21or who's doing it. And that's where the experts come in.
0:12:23 > 0:12:25Time to create some footage of my own.
0:12:26 > 0:12:30This clip of film supposedly shows me damaging my neighbour's property.
0:12:30 > 0:12:34What will an expert in CCTV analysis make of it?
0:12:35 > 0:12:39I contact Neil Millar, a former soldier now making his living
0:12:39 > 0:12:41as an expert analyst in CCTV.
0:12:42 > 0:12:44I've told him from the outset it's me in the footage
0:12:44 > 0:12:46and that my neighbour is threatening to sue.
0:12:58 > 0:13:00He says he will prepare a court report for me
0:13:00 > 0:13:03but won't lie in court if asked whether I told him it was me.
0:13:13 > 0:13:17A lot of the time, experts don't need to appear in court.
0:13:17 > 0:13:19Their reports are often evidence enough.
0:13:19 > 0:13:21So what they put in them is crucial.
0:13:27 > 0:13:29Two days later, I travel to York
0:13:29 > 0:13:31to meet with Neil Millar in a hotel bar.
0:13:38 > 0:13:41I show him the footage and he gives me his expert opinion.
0:14:11 > 0:14:15He confirms that his report will be fully court-worthy.
0:14:40 > 0:14:42But he's still uncomfortable with the prospect of being
0:14:42 > 0:14:44cross-examined in court.
0:15:00 > 0:15:03He goes to great lengths to record my every feature
0:15:03 > 0:15:06in order to compare me to the CCTV.
0:15:06 > 0:15:08He even videos my way of walking.
0:15:35 > 0:15:39The obvious bit is that it's me in the footage, and I've told him that.
0:15:41 > 0:15:44Neil Millar has named his price - £1,360.
0:15:46 > 0:15:49Now it's just a matter of waiting for his report,
0:15:49 > 0:15:52and those of all the other experts I've commissioned.
0:15:54 > 0:15:57Chris Dickinson is a solicitor who's had cause to doubt
0:15:57 > 0:16:00the integrity of some expert witnesses.
0:16:00 > 0:16:04It all started when one of his clients had a car accident.
0:16:04 > 0:16:07Three days later, she was out shopping with a friend
0:16:07 > 0:16:11and fell into her shopping trolley and had to be helped up.
0:16:11 > 0:16:14Now, she remembered nothing of that at all.
0:16:16 > 0:16:18Because she couldn't remember,
0:16:18 > 0:16:21it suggested she may have suffered a head injury in the earlier crash.
0:16:24 > 0:16:27Lawyers for the other driver appointed an expert witness,
0:16:27 > 0:16:29a neurologist, to assess her.
0:16:29 > 0:16:32Her memory of the shopping trolley incident, or lack of it,
0:16:32 > 0:16:35was key to her claim for compensation.
0:16:35 > 0:16:37She made it absolutely clear to him
0:16:37 > 0:16:40that she didn't remember that event.
0:16:40 > 0:16:41But when he wrote his report,
0:16:41 > 0:16:45he said that she did remember falling into that shopping trolley.
0:16:45 > 0:16:48Fortunately for her, she'd taped the meeting for her records.
0:17:04 > 0:17:06The case went to court.
0:17:06 > 0:17:08She was claiming compensation for a brain injury
0:17:08 > 0:17:10suffered during the car crash.
0:17:11 > 0:17:16The defence was fighting her claim based on the expert's evidence.
0:17:16 > 0:17:18Because she had made a recording,
0:17:18 > 0:17:21she was able to prove that her evidence to him had been accurate.
0:17:21 > 0:17:23She was entirely honest.
0:17:24 > 0:17:28The expert's evidence had misled the court.
0:17:28 > 0:17:32She won her case and was awarded £500,000 in compensation.
0:17:32 > 0:17:35There are a few experts that rely quite heavily
0:17:35 > 0:17:39on one or two insurers for their income.
0:17:39 > 0:17:43Those experts know what generally pleases their insurance client.
0:17:43 > 0:17:47For example, a report that says there's nothing wrong with a person.
0:17:49 > 0:17:52It's several weeks since I started my investigation.
0:17:52 > 0:17:55The expert reports I commissioned for use in court
0:17:55 > 0:17:57are ready to be collected.
0:17:57 > 0:17:59Remember, I'm the paying client.
0:17:59 > 0:18:02So will the reports say what I want them to,
0:18:02 > 0:18:03or will they tell the whole truth?
0:18:05 > 0:18:07First, Simone Tennant,
0:18:07 > 0:18:10the handwriting expert who rejected unhelpful evidence.
0:18:15 > 0:18:18Good to her word, her report says it's inconclusive
0:18:18 > 0:18:23whether I wrote the letter, even though I told her that I had.
0:18:23 > 0:18:26And there's no reference at all to my confession in her report,
0:18:26 > 0:18:29which costs me £500.
0:18:29 > 0:18:32She says she doubts very much that my case will make it to court.
0:18:32 > 0:18:34But what if it does?
0:18:56 > 0:18:59What's your opinion on Simone Tennant's report?
0:18:59 > 0:19:03The report is clearly not a proper report
0:19:03 > 0:19:06for an expert to present.
0:19:06 > 0:19:08And she concludes the report by saying,
0:19:08 > 0:19:12"The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete
0:19:12 > 0:19:16"professional opinions on the matters to which they refer."
0:19:16 > 0:19:19That's clearly incorrect.
0:19:19 > 0:19:22Simone Tennant did not reply to our written requests
0:19:22 > 0:19:25for her to respond to the findings of our investigation.
0:19:26 > 0:19:29Michael Ansell, the forensic document examiner,
0:19:29 > 0:19:32also has a report ready.
0:19:37 > 0:19:39The important thing is the report's conclusion.
0:19:45 > 0:19:48He's saying there's strong evidence that we didn't write it.
0:19:48 > 0:19:50But he's been told that we did.
0:20:06 > 0:20:09What if he's asked the most awkward question of all?
0:20:22 > 0:20:28Michael Ansell charges us £216, including VAT, for his report,
0:20:28 > 0:20:32which contains no reference at all to the fact that he's been told
0:20:32 > 0:20:34who actually wrote the letter.
0:20:34 > 0:20:37What can you say about Michael Ansell's conduct?
0:20:37 > 0:20:39Well, in his case, you had told him
0:20:39 > 0:20:43several times that you had written the disputed document,
0:20:43 > 0:20:48and in his case, the statement of truth is misleading.
0:20:48 > 0:20:52And by providing the report to you so that you can use it in court,
0:20:52 > 0:20:55he has failed to discharge his duty.
0:20:56 > 0:20:58Michael Ansell said he is not a hired gun
0:20:58 > 0:21:01and that he hadn't been paid in advance.
0:21:01 > 0:21:04He said he heard our undercover reporter say
0:21:04 > 0:21:07he wrote the anonymous note, but as he'd already been told
0:21:07 > 0:21:10it was a disputed document, he didn't at any point consider
0:21:10 > 0:21:13that the reporter meant he had written it.
0:21:13 > 0:21:18I've also received a report from Neil Millar, the CCTV expert.
0:21:18 > 0:21:23He's only written that the CCTV evidence offers "moderate support"
0:21:23 > 0:21:25to me being the person in the footage.
0:21:25 > 0:21:27But that's as high as he puts it,
0:21:27 > 0:21:30even though I've told him more than once that it is me.
0:21:30 > 0:21:33His report even suggests that the person in the footage
0:21:33 > 0:21:35could be someone else.
0:21:35 > 0:21:38What can you say about Neil Millar's conduct?
0:21:38 > 0:21:42One rather significant piece of information was that you had
0:21:42 > 0:21:46told him you were the person on the CCTV, which is completely omitted.
0:21:46 > 0:21:53So he is in serious breach of duty by giving you a report
0:21:53 > 0:21:57which he was prepared to have presented to a court.
0:21:57 > 0:22:01Neil Millar told us that he acted entirely properly throughout.
0:22:01 > 0:22:04He appropriately limited his report to an analysis of the evidence
0:22:04 > 0:22:06and matters within his expertise.
0:22:06 > 0:22:08He said he wasn't instructed by solicitors,
0:22:08 > 0:22:10that he didn't treat what he was told by us
0:22:10 > 0:22:13as part of his instructions, that he never accepts at face value
0:22:13 > 0:22:17what clients tell him, and that his report was unbiased.
0:22:17 > 0:22:20He said he'd advised us that he would have to truthfully tell
0:22:20 > 0:22:22the court what he had been told.
0:22:23 > 0:22:26Professor Peachey has also sent me his report.
0:22:26 > 0:22:30As expected, it states that the badger sett he examined for me
0:22:30 > 0:22:32is large and active.
0:22:32 > 0:22:35I meet him at a motorway service station near his home
0:22:35 > 0:22:37to pay him the balance of his fee.
0:22:58 > 0:23:01His report twice says that it was not at all obvious
0:23:01 > 0:23:05to any casual passer-by that there was a badger sett nearby.
0:23:05 > 0:23:10Has he included that to help tee up the false defence he suggested,
0:23:10 > 0:23:12that the dogs chased a badger by accident?
0:23:24 > 0:23:28Now, it seems, we are getting to the heart of Professor Peachey's plan
0:23:28 > 0:23:32to help me avoid a conviction for interfering with a badger sett.
0:24:03 > 0:24:05And if the police do knock on my door,
0:24:05 > 0:24:08Barry Peachey says he'll find me a solicitor.
0:24:08 > 0:24:11I'm curious to know how open he thinks I should be with a lawyer.
0:24:20 > 0:24:23So there we have it, Professor Peachey's bottom line.
0:24:23 > 0:24:26Don't tell the truth, even to your own lawyer.
0:24:27 > 0:24:29So if our badger story had been real,
0:24:29 > 0:24:32could the professor's behaviour even have put him
0:24:32 > 0:24:35on the wrong side of the law?
0:24:35 > 0:24:40It's very serious indeed, because by reference to what you had told him,
0:24:40 > 0:24:44he knew it wasn't highly likely that this was an accident.
0:24:44 > 0:24:47On the contrary, this was, from what you had told him
0:24:47 > 0:24:50and as he indicates in the tape, a criminal offence.
0:24:50 > 0:24:57Now, in real life, if two people put their heads together in order
0:24:57 > 0:25:03to concoct evidence to be placed before the court, which is false,
0:25:03 > 0:25:08then that gives rise to the potential criminal offence
0:25:08 > 0:25:12of perverting, or attempting to pervert, the course of justice.
0:25:14 > 0:25:16Monica Ward is the badger campaigner
0:25:16 > 0:25:19who experienced Professor Peachey in court.
0:25:19 > 0:25:21'Your defence in this case isn't that...'
0:25:21 > 0:25:25- That's away from telling the truth. - Mm.
0:25:25 > 0:25:27He's telling you to lie.
0:25:27 > 0:25:30He's telling you to lie in court, isn't he?
0:25:30 > 0:25:33That's all he's doing, yeah. To get off, that's all he can do.
0:25:33 > 0:25:35It's disgusting.
0:25:36 > 0:25:39Gosh. I'm appalled.
0:25:39 > 0:25:40Because it does throw into doubt
0:25:40 > 0:25:45his so-called independent evidence, doesn't it?
0:25:45 > 0:25:47We asked all the experts we investigated
0:25:47 > 0:25:49to respond to what we've found.
0:25:49 > 0:25:53Professor Peachey wanted to explain himself in person.
0:25:53 > 0:25:55You see, your essential problem with me
0:25:55 > 0:25:58is I'm not a crook, and you should be after those who are.
0:25:58 > 0:26:02You, on nine separate occasions in the first meeting,
0:26:02 > 0:26:06suggested that we "paint it as an accident".
0:26:06 > 0:26:09Yes, well, indeed it was, and that's entirely right, because...
0:26:09 > 0:26:11But how can that be an accident if I had broken the law
0:26:11 > 0:26:14by releasing the dogs off the lead and putting them into the sett?
0:26:14 > 0:26:17Because very often I go to cases like this where people tell me
0:26:17 > 0:26:19they've broken the law when in fact they haven't.
0:26:19 > 0:26:21But you'd agreed that I broke the law.
0:26:21 > 0:26:23Well, it's not for me to agree or disagree.
0:26:23 > 0:26:24But you did, you did agree.
0:26:24 > 0:26:26You said, yes, absolutely, you have broken the law.
0:26:26 > 0:26:29Well, it sounds as if you had, certainly.
0:26:29 > 0:26:31Given that you are, as you put it,
0:26:31 > 0:26:33and I was about to quote you this anyway,
0:26:33 > 0:26:36"What is most important is that I am an independent expert.
0:26:36 > 0:26:39- "It is not for me to put up your defences."- Exactly right.
0:26:39 > 0:26:42"The fact that I WILL put up your defences must be unknown
0:26:42 > 0:26:43- "to the prosecution."- Indeed.
0:26:44 > 0:26:46So how do you reconcile that?
0:26:46 > 0:26:48Well, I'm not...
0:26:48 > 0:26:50It is not for the prosecution to know that we have had
0:26:50 > 0:26:52any sort of discussion at all, because we don't know
0:26:52 > 0:26:55what the allegations against you are, at the end of the day.
0:26:55 > 0:26:58It clearly won't be me who is putting up your defences,
0:26:58 > 0:27:02it will be your solicitor who's putting up your defences.
0:27:02 > 0:27:06Professor Peachey told us all his reports are fair and unbiased.
0:27:06 > 0:27:09The one he provided to us was truthful and accurate,
0:27:09 > 0:27:12and he had no financial incentive not to tell the truth.
0:27:12 > 0:27:16He said the facts of the incident hadn't been made clear to him
0:27:16 > 0:27:18and that he would never lie in court.
0:27:21 > 0:27:26So we've met a CCTV expert who said it could be dodgy for him
0:27:26 > 0:27:30in the witness box, but who sold me a helpful court report anyway,
0:27:30 > 0:27:34one handwriting expert willing to ignore unfavourable evidence,
0:27:34 > 0:27:36another who says he would lie in court,
0:27:36 > 0:27:40and an animal expert who's suggested a totally false defence.
0:27:40 > 0:27:45Between them, they have produced reports for hundreds of cases.
0:27:45 > 0:27:48What's your overall view on what we've shown you?
0:27:48 > 0:27:52Every so often, one comes across experts
0:27:52 > 0:27:55who may seek to subvert the rules.
0:27:55 > 0:28:00My own experience is that that is comparatively rare.
0:28:00 > 0:28:06Nevertheless, seeing these four examples is surprising,
0:28:06 > 0:28:12and in each of these instances, it seems to me that the breaches of duty
0:28:12 > 0:28:17are, had they been carried through into the court process, very serious.
0:28:19 > 0:28:22Our investigation is only a snapshot.
0:28:22 > 0:28:24But, of the nine experts we contacted,
0:28:24 > 0:28:28only one didn't want to get involved once we had confessed our guilt.
0:28:30 > 0:28:33The Government says it's tightening the rules
0:28:33 > 0:28:35on expert testimony in criminal cases.
0:28:35 > 0:28:39But this investigation suggests the industry needs properly regulating
0:28:39 > 0:28:42to guarantee the integrity of experts
0:28:42 > 0:28:45and ensure that justice can't be bought.