Many years ago, I acted for a family in an inquest into the death of a wife, mother and sister, who died within a couple of weeks of delivering her baby as a result of complications from an undiagnosed spinal epidural abscess. The hearing took place in the country. As part of my job, I had to cross-examine local general practitioners. The next day, the doctors’ names and photos were splashed across the front page of the local paper. They could have been criminals for all the viewing public knew. Quoted lines from my questioning gave their conduct the feel of villainy. No doubt enraged parishioners wanted them run out of town.

Upon analysis and with the benefit of expert evidence, these doctors may have been found guilty of negligence. But they did not deserve opprobrium. As is invariably the case, doctors try to do no harm. Sometimes, they make mistakes. Some of those mistakes are negligent. It is a rare case indeed where a medical practitioner intentionally inflicts harm or is recklessly indifferent to whether harm occurs or not.

The case reminds me of two important matters. The first is the power imbalance between a cross-examiner and a witness. Properly prepared, a cross-examiner is in a position where real damage can be done to a person’s credibility. Too often, the media reports court cases as if cross-examining barristers are a category of celebrity. Some would like that to be so. The power, however, should be exercised with moderation. Gaining a concession from a witness is usually not an act of brilliance, but a reflection of preparation and an irresistible argument.

The second point is the impact of proceedings and cross-examination on a defendant doctor. There will be many ways in which a medical practitioner will react to being sued, let alone cross-examined. At the very least, there should be some education provided to doctors about this prospect. Some may be left embittered and scarred by the process, even if they successfully defend a claim. I intend to investigate this topic further in a book.