SJT Textbook: Acting as a Witness in Legal Proceedings
Acting as a Witness in Legal Proceedings GMC
This acting as a witness in legal proceedings GMC guide explains the doctor’s duty to the court, the difference between factual and expert witnesses, and how this is tested in MSRA SJT scenarios.
🎥 Video Lesson (YouTube)
🎧 Podcast Lesson (Spotify / Apple / Amazon)
🎯 THE CORE PRINCIPLE
Doctors may appear in legal proceedings either as witnesses of fact (professional witnesses) or as expert witnesses. In both roles, your core professional duty is to assist the court by providing evidence that is honest, impartial, and based on sound clinical knowledge and records. Your duty to the court overrides your duty to the party instructing or paying you.
The GMC expects you to understand which role you are fulfilling, to stay within your area of expertise, and to avoid overstating your certainty. As a witness of fact, you give evidence about what you saw, did, and recorded. As an expert witness, you provide an opinion on clinical issues, explaining where there is a range of reasonable views.
In MSRA SJT questions, high-scoring answers show you: maintain confidentiality appropriately, avoid discussing ongoing cases on social media, declare conflicts of interest, keep complete and contemporaneous records, and seek advice or training if asked to act beyond your experience in legal proceedings.
⚡ HIGH-YIELD ACTIONS (What Scores Points)
1. Differentiate clearly between fact and opinion – state what you observed or did, and label any opinion as opinion.
2. Stay within your competence – only accept instructions and answer questions within your area of expertise and experience.
3. Base evidence on accurate records – rely on contemporaneous notes and ensure any reports are full, fair, and unbiased.
4. Prioritise duty to the court – act independently of those instructing or paying you, and correct any errors promptly.
5. Use clear, non-technical language – explain clinical concepts in terms that judges, juries, and lawyers can understand.
6. Declare and manage conflicts of interest – disclose any personal, financial, or professional interests that might affect objectivity.
7. Maintain confidentiality – disclose only information necessary for the proceedings and handle documents securely.
8. Prepare thoroughly – read relevant records, guidelines, and instructions carefully; seek clarification if they are unclear.
9. Update your views if evidence changes – inform the court and instructing solicitors if new information alters your opinion.
10. Seek advice and training – if new to medico-legal work, obtain guidance or formal training before undertaking complex roles.
The acting as a witness in legal proceedings GMC guidance places the doctor’s primary duty on the court.
* Tailoring evidence to please the party instructing or paying you.
* Failing to disclose relevant conflicts of interest.
* Withholding or altering information that might weaken your side’s case.
* Using jargon-heavy, unclear language that may mislead the court.
* Discussing details of ongoing cases on social media or in public.
* Refusing to correct an error once you realise your evidence was inaccurate.
These traps all replace honesty and independence with advocacy, bias, or breaches of confidentiality, which will score very poorly in professionalism-focused SJTs.
💬 MODEL PHRASES (Use These in SJT Logic)
* “This opinion is based on my experience in general practice and the records supplied.”
* “Where experts differ, my view is that…, but I recognise there is a range of reasonable opinions.”
* “I will need to clarify my instructions and ensure the question is within my area of expertise.”
* “If further information becomes available, I will review and update my opinion.”
MSRA SJT frequently tests breaches of acting as a witness in legal proceedings GMC standards.
C – Competence only (stay within your field)
O – Objective and independent
U – Use clear, plain language
R – Records-based and accurate
T – Truthful, even if it harms your side
Conflicts of interest must be declared under acting as a witness in legal proceedings GMC rules.
📋 QUICK FAQ
What is the difference between a witness of fact and an expert witness?
A witness of fact describes what they saw, did, and recorded. An expert witness gives an opinion to help the court understand clinical issues within their area of expertise. Who is my primary duty to when acting as a witness?
Your primary duty is to the court, not to the patient, employer, or the party instructing you. You must be honest, objective, and impartial. Can I act as an expert witness outside my specialty if I read around the topic?
No. You should not accept instructions or give expert opinions outside your recognised field of competence and recent experience. What if I realise I have made an error in my report?
You must inform those instructing you and provide a corrected report as soon as possible, explaining the change and its impact. Can I discuss the case on social media if I avoid using names?
No. You must not share identifiable or potentially identifiable details of cases; doing so risks breaching confidentiality and public trust.
Staying within competence is central to acting as a witness in legal proceedings GMC guidance.
📚 GMC ANCHOR POINTS
* Honesty and integrity – Good Medical Practice (giving evidence and cooperating with formal inquiries).
* Working within competence – limits of your knowledge and skills when acting as an expert.
* Record keeping – importance of accurate, contemporaneous notes to support evidence.
* Confidentiality – sharing only necessary information within legal frameworks.
* Conflicts of interest – managing financial or personal interests that might bias evidence.
Confidentiality still applies under acting as a witness in legal proceedings GMC principles.
💡 MINI PRACTICE SCENARIO
You are a GP asked by a solicitor to provide an expert report on complex neurosurgical complications. You have not worked in secondary care for many years and have no specialist neurosurgical experience. Best action: Explain that this is outside your expertise, decline to act as an expert witness in this area, and suggest they instruct someone with appropriate neurosurgical experience. Why: Acting beyond your competence risks misleading the court and breaches GMC expectations; your duty is to ensure the court receives expert, not speculative, opinion.
🎯 KEY TAKEAWAYS
✓ Your duty is to the court, not the instructing party
✓ Stay strictly within your competence and experience
✓ Base evidence on accurate records and current guidance
✓ Be honest, impartial, and clear in all reports and testimony
✓ Maintain confidentiality and secure handling of documents
✓ Declare and manage conflicts of interest
✓ Correct or update your evidence promptly when needed
🔗 RELATED TOPICS
* → Good Medical Practice (Honesty, integrity, and keeping records)
* → Confidentiality and Information Sharing
* → Protecting Children and Young People (giving evidence in family courts)
* → Leadership and Management (investigations and governance)
* → Raising and Acting on Concerns About Patient Safety
📖 FULL PRACTICE QUESTIONS
Example SJT — Best of 3 (8 options; choose three)
You are a consultant physician asked to provide an expert report in a clinical negligence case. The claimant’s solicitor is paying you a substantial fee. On reviewing the notes, you can see that your report may be unfavourable to the side that instructed you.
Options:
A. Emphasise only the aspects that support the claimant’s case to justify your fee.
B. Provide a full, balanced report based on the records, even if it does not support the claimant.
C. Refuse to write the report now you realise it may not help the side paying you.
D. Clearly state the limits of your expertise and what you can and cannot comment on.
E. Discuss the case in detail with colleagues over coffee to gather informal views.
F. Use clear, non-technical language so the court can understand your conclusions.
G. Post an anonymised summary of the case on social media to get opinions from other doctors.
H. Accept the instructions but recycle a similar report you wrote for a previous case.
Correct three: B, D, F
• B: Fulfils the duty to provide independent, honest, balanced evidence to the court.
• D: Shows insight into the limits of your competence and keeps your opinion within those limits.
• F: Helps the court understand your evidence, which is a core medico-legal duty.
Why others are weaker/wrong:
• A/H: Dishonest and misleading; undermine trust and breach GMC guidance.
• C: Avoidant; having accepted instructions, you should provide honest evidence rather than withdraw because it is unfavourable.
• E/G: Breach confidentiality; informal and public discussion of case details is inappropriate.
Example SJT — Rank 5 (best → worst)
You are an FY2 who has been asked to attend a coroner’s inquest following a patient’s unexpected death. You were involved in their care and wrote in the notes at the time.
Options:
A. Review your contemporaneous notes and relevant guidelines, then give clear factual evidence about what you did and observed.
B. Be honest, but adjust your account slightly to minimise criticism of yourself and the team.
C. Decline to attend as you feel anxious and say you cannot remember anything.
D. Give confident opinions about intensive care management, even though you have minimal ICU experience.
E. Post online beforehand about how unfair it is that you have been called, seeking sympathy and advice, with case details.
Ideal order: A (1) > B (2) > C (3) > D (4) > E (5)
• A: Safest and highest-scoring – factual, prepared, honest, and based on records.
• B: Still honest in principle but implies shading evidence; not acceptable, so lower than A.
• C: Unhelpful and avoidant; you have a duty to assist the court with what you reasonably recall, supported by notes.
• D: Gives opinions beyond competence; unsafe and misleading.
• E: Serious breach of confidentiality and professionalism; worst option.