Pros and Cons to 'Hot-tubbing'

There are many different ways in which expert evidence can be presented in Court. “Hot-tubbing” is one of them.

Concurrent evidence, or ‘hot tubbing, can be described as

“a discussion chaired by the judge in which various experts…….. engage in a co-operative endeavor to identify the issues and arrive at a common resolution of them”

-                Hon Justice Peter McClellan

 (The Academy of Experts, 2015). 

The process has been very successful in the Australian Courts (Croke & Mallon, 2013) where the pros include:

·      Experts being able to debate, with few interruptions, all the issues in a joint report

·      Questioning being directed at the substance and resolution of issues without damaging or discrediting the reputation of witnesses

·      Saving time and money

(Farthing, 2013).

The disadvantages with ‘hot-tubbing’:

·      Often difficult to find a time when a number of experts can come together to prepare a joint report

·      The judges may not have a consistent approach to the conduct of the concurrent evidence session

·      The more confident expert might overshadow or overwhelm the other expert’s in the ‘hot tub’

(Garling, 2011).

Link for information about the 'expert witness' 

Before writing this blog, I had never even heard the concept of concurrent evidence or ‘hot-tubbing’. Nevertheless, after reading articles about this method, I believe it is a relatively beneficial technique. In my opinion, based solely on research, I see it as a process that potentially gives each expert a fair opportunity to present their evidence while allowing the Court to get straight to the point of the issues in dispute. For instance, in cases where children sustain physical injury, it is important for the Court to mainly concentrate on the expert’s medical evidence of the injury so that they are able to come to a fair-minded resolution.

Therefore, it is recommended that for the pros to outweigh the cons of ‘hot-tubbing’, each experts’ evidence should be properly combined in a joint report in order to significantly assist the Court in understanding the views of each expert and coming to a resolution.

References:

The Academy of Experts. (2015). Concurrent evidence – hot tubbing. Retrieved from http://www.academyofexperts.org/guidance/users-experts/concurrent-evidence-hot-tubbing

Croke, A. and Mallon, L. (2013). Hot-tub: lessons from Australia. Retrieved from https://www.ashurst.com/publication-item.aspx?id_Content=9604

Farthing, S. (2013, April 25).  Judge enjoys ‘hot tubbing’ – finds advantages in concurrent evidence. Mondaq. Retrived from http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/235820/court+procedure/Judge+enjoys+hot+tubbing+finds+advantages+in+concurrent+evidence

Garling, P. (2011). Reflections on concurrent expert evidence. Journal of the NSW Bar Association, Summer 2011 – 2013, 12 – 15. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=775555457638283;res=IELHSS