"Rip on - rip off" a lesson in Expert selection

Whether prosecuting or defending, instructing the right expert witness is fundamental.

Expert witnesses are not interchangeable. Even within the same field, their levels of relevant experience, subject matter understanding, and evidential rigour vary significantly. That’s why due diligence is not optional — it’s essential.

Case study: 

R v Danvers

AI-generated image

Mr Danvers was stopped by Border Force officers on his return to Heathrow from Jamaica. His suitcase contained thirteen kilograms of high-purity cocaine. He denied all knowledge, claiming someone else must have placed the drugs there without his knowledge or involvement.

The team investigating instructed one of their Drug Expert Witnesses, who provided evidence describing ‘rip’ methodology — a known method of smuggling drugs via interference with freight, cargo and passenger luggage at both sea and air ports. On the face of it, the Crown’s case appeared compelling. Mr Danvers was remanded in custody pending trial.

Defence instruction: why expert selection mattered

Lloyds PR solicitors reviewed several potential Drug Expert Witnesses. They instructed our expert, Mr Ian Broughton, based on his specific and relevant operational experience:

• He had investigated or supervised numerous importation cases involving ‘rip’ smuggling techniques.

• He had direct experience working "airside" at U.K. airports alongside HMRC, with a practical understanding of baggage and internal freight movement.

• He had travelled to Jamaica in an official capacity to investigate organised drug trafficking, working alongside Jamaican law enforcement and customs officers.

• He was aware of corruption issues that existed at many ports.

This background gave Mr Broughton the insight necessary to properly interrogate the Crown’s case and consider alternative explanations. A less experienced expert may not have been able to identify the same evidential gaps or provide the same degree of context.

AI-generated image

Expert report: narrowing the issues

Mr Broughton’s expert report:

• Forensically examined the Crown’s evidence, including the context in which the drugs were found.

• Agreed with the contents of the Crown's Drug Expert report.

• Expanded upon the information provided by the Crown's Expert by further explaining 'rip-on/rip-off' methods using operational case examples.

• Identified two plausible scenarios: (1) Mr Danvers was complicit, or (2) he was unknowingly used.

This properly framed the central issue for the Court to determine based on the totality of the evidence.

Importantly, the Crown’s drug trafficking expert reviewed Mr Broughton’s report and agreed with its contents. The Crown did not seek to challenge his properly set out conclusions.

Outcome

At trial in Isleworth Crown Court, the defence submitted that, in light of the agreed expert evidence, Mr Danvers had no case to answer. The judge concurred, and the case was dismissed at half-time.

The broader point

Had the defence not instructed an expert with direct operational experience, it is likely the Court would not have been fully assisted. The implications for Mr Danvers — including a possible conviction and long custodial sentence — could have been life-altering.

The case illustrates why, whether prosecuting or defending, it is not enough to simply instruct an expert witness. You must conduct proper due diligence to assess their practical experience and evidential competence. Some will lack a relevant background. Some will fail in their ultimate duty.

The overriding principle remains: that criminal cases must be dealt with justly. That includes ensuring that the Court is properly assisted by expert evidence that is relevant, impartial, and based on real operational knowledge.

In our view, the investigating team relied far too heavily on their expert and should have, and could have, done more to seek additional evidence that might point towards Mr Danvers' guilt or innocence.

All our experts are allocated cases that fall safely within their fields of true expertise and are peer reviewed by another. Expert Evidence is too important to get wrong.