Abstract
The recent Julian Assange case raised a number of important issues regarding the role of expert witnesses in court. While written from a personal perspective, this paper will suggest that these issues need much fuller discussion than they have received to date. They will be discussed in the context of what actually happened in this case, the details of which were reported only sketchily (and sometimes inaccurately) in the press. First, there is the question of what is properly a medical or a legal responsibility. A second issue concerns whether re-litigation of already determined matters should be permitted in higher courts, when the expert does not have the opportunity to respond. A third matter involves the apparently differing professional views and ethos of the legal and other professions regarding matters of personal privacy for non-participants, particularly with respect to the safeguarding of children. Other issues include the language which may be used by some lawyers in criticising expert testimony, the protection of experts from potentially libellous reporting in the press, and the use and abuse of diagnostic classifications, such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). These various matters have implications for larger concerns regarding the recruitment of suitable expert witnesses to the courts.