There is a bit of confusion on here in relation to expert witnesses, anyone who is an expert on a subject can place themselves on a list held by the National Crime Agency as long as they are indeed an expert on that subject.
The prosecution and defence teams then search that database for experts that they both pay to provide their expert opinion on the evidence before them. They re paid both by the prosecution and teh defence teams, their evidence must be unbiased and based on the evidence before them. The judge in a case will quite often ask all expert witnesses on both sides to talk to each other if there is a discrepancy in their opinions, it has been accepted for years that the basis of an expert is one of independence.
Indeed the UK no longer has a Forensic Science Service run by the Home Office it is now completely independent and available to anyone who pays the fee. In my experience experts are very independent and don’t care if their evidence doesn’t fit the narrative put forward by the defence or prosecution.
The argument that the prosecution has paid witnesses is incorrect, all witnesses to the offences ie people who were there and saw heard or felt something get no payment but can claim out of pocket expenses for attending court as can anyone called as a juror.
Like all witnesses experts can be wrong and there is an old judicial saying that there is no more certain witness than a mistaken one.
