Peter Moore on 'My days in a courtroom - as a witness, of course'

I wonder whether Peter Mandelson or Andrew Mountbatten Windsor read Torbay Weekly. If they do I have some advice should they end up in court. 

My advice is free which is better than employing a very expensive lawyer. I do not claim to have any legal qualifications but having no qualifications does not stop people giving advice online. 

Where I do have experience is appearing in court as a police surgeon. For the avoidance of doubt, I was always a witness and never the defendant.  

I do not go back as far as the ancient Romans, but they did bring us a fundamental principle in English law derived from the Roman ‘Digest of Justinian’ in the 6th century. In Latin, the rule was ‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat’ or ‘Proof lies on him who asserts’. 

The words ‘he who asserts’ was taken literally. The alleged victim argued it out with the alleged perpetrator. 

Today “he who asserts” is the King and so criminal cases are Rex vs Fred. Any case against Andrew Mountbatten Windsor would be “Mountbatten-Windsor vs his brother”. 

All the defence needs to do is introduce “reasonable doubt”, If the police caught the burglar climbing out of the window with the jewellery in his pocket the “reasonable doubt” might be that the correct procedure had not been followed. If I examined him but did follow the correct procedure or was his detention legal?

If the case relied on my description of injuries “doubt” could be introduced by implying that I am an idiot. Of course, lawyers are more subtle. Juries often see doctors as the good guys. Older members of the jury might remember Dr Finlay, younger ones Doc Martin. They will not be impressed by a bullying barrister. 

If the witness is a young hospital doctor the barrister might play on his arrogance, “In all your experience doctor …”. The young doctor will then pontificate until he is asked “so how long had you worked in the A and E department”. “Two weeks”. 

For an older doctor, like me, they might suggest in the summing up “lovely old doctor but he’s been a GP in the backwater of Torquay all his life. Means well but probably a bit past it”. 

It is also vital to get the jargon right. The word which trips up doctors who are not forensically trained is laceration. Lacrima means tear in Latin. A laceration is a wound caused by tearing the skin such as being hit by a stick. A knife causes an incised wound not a laceration. This may sound pedantic but is great news for defence lawyers.  Get it wrong and the summing up to the jury might be “a wonderful doctor but he did not even know what a laceration was. How can we possibly trust his other evidence”. Again, it introduces doubt. 

In one case the barrister asked me about how the samples had been handled by the laboratory. This was clearly out of my area but he dressed the question up with flattery. “You’re very experienced with a Diploma of Medical Jurisprudence and you are a member of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. With all your expertise, what is your opinion?” The trick was to pull me into an area I do not know and then undermine my credibility by quoting a paper I have never seen. After I had said that this was not my area several times the judge intervened. “Surely Mr X. The doctor has already said this is out of his field. Do you intend to persist in this line of questioning?” The barrister apologised and sat down.  

If pushed into a corner, “yes or no, doctor”, when the answer is more complicated, I could look at the judge and comment “If I could just explain this to the court”. No barrister could then intervene and say “no, I won’t let you explain”. 

Another trick was to position my feet so that I was facing between the judge and jury. I would then answer any questions to the court rather than simply to the barrister, 

Both Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson deny any wrongdoing and so neither may end up in court but I am here if they need advice. I am also very cheap.