Case No. WH21C00033

17.It is common knowledge that, on occasions, a second post-mortem may be undertaken with the leave of the coroner. A more common situation, certainly in terms of addressing the problem in the present case, is more simply for a second expert to be instructed to conduct analysis in relation to a specific specialty, for example bone injury. In that respect, the permission of the coroner would be required for slides, samples and other material collected during the post-mortem examination to be made available to the second expert. There will be a pressing need to ensure the security and evidential integrity of those materials if they are to be the subject of a second examination.18.The instruction of a second expert is, however, unlikely to provide a viable solution in most cases. Firstly, where, as is the case with paediatric osteoarticular expertise, there is only one pathologist in England and Wales currently undertaking this work, it is likely to be impossible to identify a suitable second expert in the jurisdiction. Secondly, whilst a foreign expert may be instructed, the need to ensure the security of the primary evidence is likely to give rise to complications. Thirdly, simply obtaining a second bone expert, for example, who can report more quickly than the primary instructed expert will not, of itself, accelerate receipt of the final full post-mortem report which would, presumably, have to await the opinion of the original expert.19.It is apparently the case that there is currently no agreed protocol between the Police and the Family Court concerning the safe and secure physical transfer of samples for analysis by experts instructed in Family proceedings. On the publication of this judgment, I will invite the newly re-constituted Family and Criminal Interface Committee to consider this and the wider issues raised here.