Did Dr Evans Break The Rules?
The retired paediatrician testified as an expert in a case in 2018 when he was not licensed to practice by the GMC
In November 2018, Dr Dewi Evans testified in the case of a six-week-old baby. It is possible that in doing so he broke rules.
Figure 1 below sets out the guidance from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for healthcare professionals giving expert testimony. It states that, in order to demonstrate legitimacy,:
Healthcare professionals giving expert evidence must hold the appropriate licence to practise/registration and be in, or sufficiently recently in, practice. This is essential if producing a report from direct assessment and/or examination of the patient.
If there are circumstances where this is not the case the healthcare professional must be able to demonstrate why it is appropriate for them to still act as a witness and that they have maintained the appropriate expertise.
If the case relates to historical events the healthcare professional should ideally have been in practice at the time of the events in question or be able to demonstrate understanding of the standards applicable at the time and the context of the incident.
Figure 2 below is the General Medical Council record for Dr David Richard Evans (https://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/1503009). It states that Evans was ‘Registered without a licence to practise’ from 26 Aug 2015 to 16 Jul 2019.
Figure 3 below is an extract from Dr Evans’ LinkedIn profile (https://www.linkedin.com/in/dewi-evans-211194a3/?originalSubdomain=uk). It states that Evans was a consultant paediatrician until July 2009, and thereafter (from September 2010 to the present) a Director of Dewi Evans Paediatric Consulting.
Figure 4 below is the December 2018 article in The Southern Daily Echo about the case of the six-week-old (https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17269039.doctor-claims-bite-baby-death-intentional/ ). It states that, “Winchester Crown heard from consultant paediatrician Dr Dewi Evans”. It appears that Dr Evans is testifying as an expert rather than as the child’s paediatrician. This is supported by the fact that Dr Evans lived in Carmarthen in 2018 (see LinkedIn profile) while the trial was being held in Winchester. He’s also referred to as a ‘consultant paediatrician’ rather than a ‘retired consultant paediatrician’.
The article also states that, “Dr Evans told the jury he thought the defendants’ accounts of either the baby being dropped or falling from a sofa didn’t explain the injuries, which included a fractured femur, rib fractures, and the bite to the nose”. This also sounds like the testimony of an expert considering the injuries rather than the child’s paediatrician testifying about that relationship.
So….
Do any of you (with experience in these matters or otherwise) think that Evans broke the rules? If yes, was the offence a serious one? And if yes, what might the ramifications be in relation to his testimony at Lucy’s trial?
Figure 1: Guidance from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for healthcare professionals giving expert testimony (from https://www.aomrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Expert_witness_0519-1.pdf)
Figure 2: General Medical Council record for Dr David Richard Evans (https://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/1503009)
Figure 3: Extract from Dr Dewi Evans’ LinkedIn profile (https://www.linkedin.com/in/dewi-evans-211194a3/?originalSubdomain=uk)
Figure 4: Article in The Southern Daily Echo (https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17269039.doctor-claims-bite-baby-death-intentional/ )
Doctor claims bite to baby before his death was ‘intentional’
1st December 2018
A DOCTOR told a murder trial he thought a six-week-old baby had been “hurled by the leg” and his head “smashed against a hard surface” shortly before dying.
Winchester Crown heard from consultant paediatrician Dr Dewi Evans who also said the baby, who died on February 11, suffered an “intentional” bite to the nose.
It comes as the boy’s 17-year-old father stands trial for murder, while the 19-year-old mother is accused of neglect. Neither can be identified for legal reasons.
Dr Evans told the jury he thought the defendants’ accounts of either the baby being dropped or falling from a sofa didn’t explain the injuries, which included a fractured femur, rib fractures, and the bite to the nose.
The court previously heard from a teenage witness, who also cannot be named, that she was smoking with the mother outside her flat when they heard a “thud”. They went back inside where she said the father was picking up the baby.
Later, she said the father had been playing with the baby when he “managed to bite his nose”, although she admitted she did not directly see either incident.
However, the court today heard that was disputed by the mother, who said in a police interview she was inside crying when she heard the incident, and that she also didn’t see it.
She said they had been arguing and was not aware of the full extent of the baby’s injuries, some of which are alleged to have been caused before that night.
The mother added: “I really, truly wish I had broken up with him in October when I was pregnant,” after saying he had been “violent” towards her. During the police interview, she also described him as “very controlling”, but said she had never known him to hurt the baby.
When questioned why she didn’t call police over the father’s behaviour on the night the baby died, she responded: “I don’t know.” She was then accused of “allowing this to happen through your own inaction”, which she denied.
Both deny the charges. The trial continues.
Sep 07, 2023
I think you might have the wrong Dr Evans from the GMC site. The one whose GMC profile you have displayed currently DOES have a license to practise, and a responsible officer, and is subject to revalidation. This does not fit with the description of Dr Evans as a ‘retired’ paediatrician.
In fact I do not believe Dr Dewi Evans is currently registered with the GMC at all, having relinquished his registration in 2009. I am basing my assumption on this:
This would, in my submission, make the acceptance of his evidence by a court even more unusual. Further, to the best of my knowledge, Dr Evans has never specialised in the sub-specialty of neonatal paediatrics.Show Less
LikeReply1 Like
Sep 07, 2023
Replying toRetiredDoc
I’m lost for words.
LikeReply
Sep 07, 2023
Replying toRetiredDoc
Apologies to all – I’ve got this wrong. I have the wrong Dr Evans – Peter was correct as usual. Hangs head in shame…
LikeReply
4 Likes
Sep 07, 2023
Replying toViviane
Don’t be Viviane! Ed in fact got the wrong one.
LikeReply
2 Likes
Sep 07, 2023
Replying toRetiredDoc
Errare humanum est.
LikeReply
Sep 03, 2023
In fairness to Dr Evans, he seems to have been careful during the trial to caveat and clearly define his role; didn’t he even say (if memory serves me correctly) that to call him an “expert witness” would be “far too flash”, or something? Given this, it’s surely up to whom it falls to to lead the proceedings, to decide what to make of Dr Evans‘ submissions and what emphasis to place upon them?
There does indeed seem to to be an almighty stink about this trial, but I don’t get the sense that Dr Evans is the principal source of it.
LikeReply
M2 Likes
Sep 04, 2023
Replying toFather Hernandez
Yes, how could he be accepted as an expert witness if he stated he wasn’t one? That’s down to the legal side? Not ever having seen one of the machines used (I think for insulin / testing?) is quite illustrative of that – so how could that be classed as an expert? Which possibly ties in with being unlicensed / out of practice at the time.
LikeReply1 Like
Sep 04, 2023
Replying toFather Hernandez
I think by BM having Dr Evans state, that to call him an expert witness was to flash, BM was highlighting to the jury that he should be viewed as a professional witness rather than an expert witness with specialised knowledge in the field in which he is practising.
An Expert witness has a duty to the Court, to give honest, objective, unbiased evidence of their findings, not to the party who is instructing, or paying them.
LikeReply1 Like
Sep 03, 2023
I agree with both points of view here. On the one hand there is no point in generating what could look like a desperate witch-hunt, but on the other hand we know enough already to conclude that the ‘evidence’ he gave was deeply flawed. There are clearly questions to be asked about this ‘expert witness’ and his place in the whole process that culminated in the trial. I don’t see there is any harm in collecting as much information as possible and then at some later point evaluating whether it might be useful in practical terms. Unless one looks hard one does not know what one may find that may be valuable even if nothing is apparent immediately. We may have another Roy Meadow here or we may not.Show Less
LikeReply
A6 Likes
Sep 04, 2023
Replying toaliquis53
Per my comment elsewhere, I think that three things need to be done: 1. the evidence needs to be questioned, 2. the prosecution experts who presented the evidence need to be questioned, and 3. specialists (in air embolism, insulin, air in the gut, sudden collapse, etc) need to present the correct evidence in relation to the science. In relation to 1, the rexv site has comprehensively set out the flaws in the prosecution expert testimony, much of which was provided by Evans (https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/air_embolism/, https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/air-gut/, https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/symptoms/). I do think that going after the experts and their evidence (per the Lucia de Berk case as mentioned in my ’Twilight Zone’ post) is going to be critical (as well as presenting new, credibl…Show More
LikeReply
A4 Likes
Sep 03, 2023
Not sure you are on the right track here Peter. This appears to be a witch hunt against Dewi Evans and, as far as I can see, nothing substantial, nothing to help Lucy. Dr Evans is not a guy I warm to at all, and in view of Sarrita’s opinion of his evidence, not credible as an expert witness in the area required in Lucy’s case. Unless you come up with real dirt on the guy, I wouldn’ waste anymore time on him.
LikeReply
Sep 03, 2023
Replying tox
Thanks dcm539. That’s what I wanted to know. It seems that three things need to be done: the evidence needs to be questioned, the prosecution experts who presented the evidence need to be questioned, and specialists (in air embolism, insulin, air in the gut, sudden collapse, etc) need to present the correct evidence in relation to the science. In relation to 2., probably only ‘real dirt’ as you say will be useful. Thanks again.
LikeReply
X
6 Likes
Sep 04, 2023
Replying tox
Witch hunt is a term that can only apply to what they did to Lucy.
Also you are weakening this site by publishing doubts.
LikeReply
M7 Likes
Sep 05, 2023
Replying torosemoloney
Agreed.
LikeReply2 Likes
© Chimp Investor Ltd
