Kissing a Witness Gets Expert Excluded

After a proposed prosecution expert witness was seen kissing a witness for the prosecution as they arrived at the court, the defense counsel claimed the expert could not be regarded as an independent witness. The district judge agreed, finding that a reasonable observer might think the expert biased. Without the expert testimony, the defendant was acquitted.

The defendant, Mick Wills, was charged with illegally hunting a fox with dogs in Alithorn Woods, Northamptonshire, in September 2017. Wills' defense was that the plan had been to use a golden eagle to kill the fox once it had been flushed out, which is permitted in the UK under the Hunting Act 2004.

The expert witness, Professor Stephen Harris, is one of Britain's leading authorities on foxes, a long standing opponent of hunting and a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Bristol. He had been employed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on a number of cases to give evidence on behalf of the Crown.

According to Professor Harris, the prosecution witness, Judy Gilbert, a veteran anti-hunting campaigner, kissed him before he could stop her. He claimed they had not seen each other for nearly two decades, being quoted as saying “I am not responsible for someone who I have not seen for so long kissing me.”

Professor Harris' independence had been questioned in the past. In December 2015, the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) brought a private prosecution against six members of the Lamerton Hunt, retaining Professor Harris as its expert witness. The case failed after the court learned of his friendship with Paul Tilsley, the LACS's head of investigations, his publication of a book by the LACS, and his other connections to the group.

Professor Harris rejected accusations of bias, claiming in an interview with the Telegraph that “I am an independent academic …. I base my opinions on the facts, not the preconceived objectives of others.”

A CPS spokesperson is quoted as saying that “We are aware of the judge's comments and are looking into what happened in this case.”