A curious issue has arisen in Australia concerning a clinical psychologist found guilty of professional misconduct. This blog recently included a post on the primary issue. The psychologist had concluded that a father showed traits of psychopathy such that it might be dangerous to leave his child alone with him. It was found that there was no clinical basis for this conclusion, and the psychologist was fined AUS$20,000.
Because the evidence was given in family law proceedings, the matter was in camera. The expert was named in the judgment, which is publicly available on the web site of the Australian courts, but the court has refused to allow his name to be published in the press.
The matter is discussed in this editorial in The Australian:
“The statute relied upon by the judge on Monday creates an exception for law reports — drafted before instant and universal access to judgments via the Australasian Legal Information Institute. Can the AustLII website name an expert witness while ours cannot? The judgment relying on Dr M’s evidence was online, with his name, for quite some time. The rationale of the family law system is supposed to be the best interests of children. How can that cause be paramount when the powerful intervention of expert witnesses is opaque?” https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/editorials/expertise-must-be-accountable/news-story/2a8c9697fda68908fd9f614e7a1ec6fe