Court reports · digital evidence, Reading
A report is bought for one thing only: what it can withstand. Someone opposite is paid to take it apart, and anything written to keep the instructing party happy will not last the morning. Part 35 settles the ranking in advance — the duty runs to the court, ahead of client, solicitor and fee note — and criminal instructions run to Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025. Both begin the same way here: written method, exhibit history, the two declarations, and the accreditation position stated at the top rather than discovered by the other side. Solicitors and insurers across Berkshire get the same document. Figure fixed first, from £800 + VAT.
Talk it through in confidence
0800 6890668
| The report type | Where it applies | Its contents |
|---|---|---|
| A findings report on its own | Early advice, HR decisions, board-level questions | What was there, how that was established, and what it amounts to — in plain words |
| A report on an insured loss | Where cause, extent or liability are in dispute | The findings, the exhibits, and how the loss came about |
| An expert report to CPR Part 35 | Civil claims within England and Wales | The duty at the head; instructions in substance; the method entire; both signed statements, truth and compliance |
| An expert report to CrimPR Part 19 | Cases bound for a criminal court | The criminal shape: qualifications, the material a court needs to weigh reliability, and credibility declared |
| One jointly instructed expert | Where both sides instruct one examiner together | One report, issued to each side at the same moment, with the duty running past both of them to the court |
The scoping call costs nothing, and nothing chargeable starts until you have a price in writing. What the call fixes is the ground it covers: the events, the machines and accounts in play, and precisely what the evidence must establish. Forensic instructions start at £800 + VAT, and the scope decides where yours lands.
Our own summary of the instruction letter goes into the report, as CPR 35.10 requires, and no privilege attaches to it. Alongside it goes whatever bears on our credibility, beginning with the obvious: an independent lab that holds no accreditation. Far better read on the opening page than extracted from a witness under cross-examination.
Every step is taken, and recorded, on the assumption that an expert opposite is looking for the weak point. That is what they are instructed to do. Nothing in the conclusions bends towards the party paying for them.
Format follows forum. Civil instructions are written to CPR Part 35 with PD35; criminal instructions to Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, the set that revoked the 2020 Rules in October of that year. The working parts do not vary: a method written down, the exhibits themselves, an unbroken record of custody and dates, and the declarations. Conclusions sit at the front; technical detail goes into an annex.
Hand the other side a finding they cannot test and you have handed them an argument. So it all goes in the bundle: exhibit numbers, the image each conclusion came off, dated handovers, the hashes, and the working notes typed as the job ran. The examiner on the other side can run the whole thing again and reach the same answer.
A question worth asking any expert on your shortlist: Part 19 obliges an expert to disclose whatever a court might reasonably regard as detracting from their credibility, and CPS guidance treats an accreditation not held as falling squarely inside that. Silence turns it into the client's problem. Ours is on the opening page of every report issued from this room, with the method it rests on set out below it.
Two firms shared one folder, and the accounts inside it existed in two versions that would not reconcile. Forensic images of both machines showed where each edit had been made, and the sequence of those edits answered the question. The dispute closed inside the month.
A findings report settles what was on the machine and how that was established. A court report carries both, then adds: the duty the expert owes the court; your instructions in substance; method and exhibit history from receipt to return; the two signed statements; and anything the other side may want to raise about the expert.
The court. Payment does not enter into it. It ranks above any obligation to whoever gives the instructions, and that ranking is what makes the document worth putting before a judge.
Yes. One report, one set of conclusions, and both parties receive it together. Neither side sees a draft in advance, and neither side gets to move the wording.
Declaring it is what the rules require, so it is declared at the top rather than in a footnote. Weight, in a court, comes off method, so method is where the effort goes. Reports come unstuck when somebody has claimed more than the evidence carried, not for want of a certificate.
A report is only as useful as the instruction behind it, so the first call is about what needs proving and by when. Looking is free, the fee is fixed in writing, and the findings go to whoever instructed us and to no one else.