An expert should therefore understand what they are signing rather than treating the declaration as standard text added at the final stage. The precise wording differs between the UK, South Africa, United States and Australia, and there is no single declaration that can safely be copied across all four areas. What remains consistent is the principle behind it: the expert takes responsibility for the opinions expressed and makes clear that those opinions result from their own professional assessment.
The Declaration Should Reflect the Expert’s Own Opinion.
At its most basic level, a declaration should make clear that the report represents the expert’s genuine professional opinion. This sounds obvious, but it goes to the heart of expert evidence.
Solicitors, claims organisations and report-writing teams may help with administration, formatting and the collection of records, but the clinical reasoning must remain the expert’s own. An expert should never sign a declaration confirming ownership of an opinion they have not personally considered.
This becomes particularly important where reports use templates or standard wording. Templates can improve consistency and make sure important issues are covered, but they should not produce conclusions automatically. The expert still needs to consider the history, examination, records and other relevant evidence before adopting the final opinion.
The declaration therefore acts as more than a signature. It confirms professional responsibility for what appears above it.
Independence and Professional Duty Need to Be Clear.
A declaration should also reflect the expert’s independent role. The person or organisation paying for the report does not determine the medical conclusion, and instructions should not change the expert’s clinical opinion simply because one outcome would be more helpful to a particular party.
In England and Wales, Practice Direction 35 requires an expert report to contain a statement confirming that the expert understands and has complied with their duty to the court. The expert must also confirm awareness of CPR Part 35, the Practice Direction and the relevant guidance for experts in civil claims. The report must then carry the prescribed statement of truth.
The wording is important because the declaration connects the report directly with the expert’s responsibility for its contents. It is not enough for an expert to believe that they have acted independently; the report itself needs to meet the formal requirements that apply to the area in which it will be used.
Facts and Opinions Should Not Be Blurred.
A good declaration also sits behind another important feature of expert reporting: the distinction between facts known personally to the expert and information obtained from other sources.
An expert may know certain facts because they examined the individual themselves. Other information may come from medical records, imaging, witness accounts or instructions from those commissioning the report.
Those sources are not equivalent, and the report should make clear where information originated.
In England and Wales, the required statement of truth specifically addresses the distinction between matters within the expert’s own knowledge and those that are not. Practice Direction 35 also requires experts to set out the substance of material facts and instructions and to identify qualifications or limitations affecting an opinion.
This matters because an expert can accept a history for the purpose of forming an opinion without claiming personal knowledge that the history is factually correct. Clear reporting prevents those two positions from becoming confused.
South Africa Has Its Own Specific Requirements.
South Africa provides a useful example of why one international declaration cannot simply be used everywhere.
Under Uniform Rule 36(9)(b), the summary of an expert’s opinion and the reasons supporting it must be compiled by the expert. The rule also requires a statement confirming that the report is in the expert’s own words, is intended to assist the court and constitutes a statement of truth. These requirements were introduced through changes to Rule 36(9) that took effect in 2023.
The emphasis on the report being in the expert’s own words is particularly relevant to modern medico-legal practice. Experts may work with secretarial support, report-writing platforms and increasingly AI-assisted tools, but those systems do not take responsibility for the opinion.
The expert does.
South African authority has also continued to emphasise that an expert opinion needs reasons and supporting facts or data rather than a bare conclusion.
A declaration cannot compensate for weak reasoning elsewhere in the report.
The United States Takes a Different Approach.
The position in the United States needs more careful wording because there is no single nationwide medico-legal declaration equivalent to the England and Wales Part 35 wording. Requirements can vary between federal and state proceedings.
In federal civil litigation, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires a retained expert’s written report to be prepared and signed by the witness. The report must provide the expert’s opinions and reasons, the facts or data considered, relevant exhibits, qualifications, specified previous testimony and compensation information.
That is not the same as attaching a universal declaration of independence or statement of truth in the form used elsewhere.
For an expert preparing reports for the US market, this distinction matters. A declaration drafted for an English report should not simply be transferred to an American report on the assumption that it satisfies the relevant requirements.
The applicable federal or state rules should determine the final wording.
Australia Also Requires Jurisdictional Care.
Australia presents a similar issue because requirements can vary between courts and districts.
For proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, the Expert Evidence Practice Note incorporates the Harmonised Expert Witness Code of Conduct. An expert must acknowledge that they have read the Practice Note, complied with it and agree to be bound by it. The Code also requires the report to identify important assumptions, materials and qualifications, and to address whether any opinion remains unconcluded because information or research is insufficient.
The Code additionally requires a declaration dealing with the inquiries the expert considers appropriate and whether significant relevant matters have been withheld to their knowledge. The expert must also sign the report.
Those Federal Court requirements should not automatically be assumed to apply identically in every Australian state or territory, so the intended forum remains important.
A Declaration Should Match the Report It Follows.
The greatest mistake is treating the declaration as independent from the rest of the report.
An expert should not confirm that an opinion is complete while leaving an important uncertainty unexplained. Nor should they confirm that the report reflects their own professional opinion without reviewing material inserted by somebody else.
The declaration needs to be consistent with the report itself.
If records remain outstanding, the body of the report should identify that limitation. If an opinion depends on a particular factual assumption, that should also be clear. Where evidence falls outside the expert’s expertise, the report should say so rather than allowing the declaration to create an impression of greater certainty.
This becomes increasingly important as medico-legal reporting becomes more technology-assisted. Software may improve consistency and reduce administrative work, but the expert still needs to read the complete report, check the evidence and make sure the reasoning represents their own view before signing it.
Across the UK, South Africa, United States and Australia, the exact wording may differ considerably. What should not differ is the seriousness with which the expert approaches it.
An expert’s declaration should never be the paragraph everyone skips at the end of the report. It is the point at which the expert confirms that the opinions, limitations and reasoning in the report are genuinely theirs and that the report meets the duties required in the district where it will be used.
