Skip to main content

Psychological expert opinion is unreliable in at least 65% of cases in three courts

The link is to the detailed study on the University of Central Lancashire website.

It is important research because it looks at the details of the psychological reports in 126 out of 180 cases in three courts.

Obviously this does not read through to the national position precisely, but it gives a good guide.

Many of the things revealed about the reports would indicate that the expert involved would be struck off. 65% of the reports were "poor" or "very poor". This means really that they should not have been part of the trial.

It raises an automatic question as to the reliability of the judgment in 65% of cases. Actually the position is even worse as it appears that 90% of the reports are by people who make their living out of writing reports for the family courts rather than by people who practise psychology.

The inherent conflict of interest for people who need to keep getting instructions in the family court is something I have mentioned before, but is ignored by the judiciary.

What is unusual about this is that it is a report commissioned by "the system" and is a reliable dataset that gives a read through. It is not mere anecdote.

It does not surprise me that although the report was available for publication in September 2011 it was not published until February 2012. Clearly there are people who would have wished to bury the report without trace and keep it secret. Happily for people who wish the system to have integrity this has not happened.

Comments

Jake Maverick said…
my only problem with what you say there is

"it is a report commissioned by "the system" and is a reliable dataset"

damn, these poxymorons do make me laugh soemtimes! i do suspect you know better...
SarahN said…
The report has not been published properly as yet. It has therefore not been peer reviewed as a properly published article would have been.
john said…
How do you know that it has not been reviewed?

It has, in fact, had two reviews.
SarahN said…
When i say peer review I mean the sort of rigorous apporach that is used before a professional journal decides to publish a research article. This looks at methodology, and the statistical analysis of the results among other things. Has this been carried out and by who?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…