Expert Conferences in the Kilmore East bushfire proceeding

This paper, the second in a series on the management of expert evidence during the Kilmore East bushfire proceeding, considers the use of expert conferences. Most of the expert evidence in the proceeding went through this process, and the scale of the conferences and extent of their use was a distinctive aspect of the proceeding. This paper is based on material from interviews with some of the judges, barristers, solicitors and experts who were involved in the proceeding, and explores their experience regarding the use of expert conferences in this case. They agreed that the expert conferences and the production of joint reports was a useful exercise. The joint reports provided a summary of the lengthy and complex expert evidence, and gave a clearer picture of the issues that remained in dispute between the experts. The experts also found the conferences valuable, permitting them to have robust and technical discussions about the evidence. The role of the Associate Justice as a moderator in the larger conferences was seen as very helpful, even essential. This is not to say all the participants were completely satisfied by how the procedure was adopted. The paper shows that separating experts into conferences covering different areas of expertise can be difficult to get right, and also the importance of the Court properly consulting with the parties if a requirement for further testing emerges from the expert conferences. It suggests that experts were sometimes adversarial and positional during the conferences when the moderator was not present, which indicates that care should be taken to ensure the experts properly understand their role in the trial process. Nevertheless, the use of expert conferences was a success and the experience in the proceeding is testament to the procedure’s benefits.