Oxford surgeon Simon Jackson has been criticised by a High Court judge for giving evidence that was “wholly unsatisfactory” “cherry-picking” and “lacked balance” when he acted as medical expert for an NHS Health board defending a high value mesh case.

See p44-45 of Court Documents below

The remarkable judgment in Preater v Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board contains a powerful reminder of the importance of impartiality when experts give evidence in mesh litigation.

Karen Preater, a Sling The Mesh campaigner, was accused by the defendant of fundamental dishonesty. The Health Board alleged that surveillance footage, social media activity and beauty treatments she carried out from home showed she had exaggerated her disabilities and losses. The court firmly rejected those allegations and awarded damages exceeding £1 million before the agreed liability reduction.

Perhaps most strikingly for mesh-injured women, HHJ Howells was highly critical of some of the defence expert evidence.

At paragraph 127 of the judgment, the judge said of defence gynaecology expert Mr Simon Jackson:

“I gained the clear impression that he had cherry-picked those parts of the evidence which were supportive of the Defendant’s case and did not comment on those parts which were consistent to the Claimant’s. That is not the correct approach to be taken by an independent expert, whose duty is to the court. His evidence lacked balance and was unpersuasive.”

The judge found that Mr Jackson highlighted parts of the surveillance footage that appeared inconsistent with Ms Preater’s case, while failing to address evidence that supported her account, including signs of limping, pain and mobility difficulties.

The court also criticised the approach of other defence experts, finding that some had strayed beyond their expertise, drawn adverse conclusions without proper analysis, or produced evidence that lacked balance.

Importantly, HHJ Howells concluded that Ms Preater had not been dishonest, had not exaggerated her condition, and that the surveillance and social media evidence did not justify the allegations made against her. The judge accepted that she suffered genuine chronic pain, fibromyalgia, mobility problems and the life-changing consequences of mesh complications. [

For mesh-affected women who have often felt disbelieved, the judgment is significant. It reinforces a simple principle: expert witnesses must present all relevant evidence fairly and objectively, not selectively use material that supports only one side of the argument.

Preater v BCUHB stands as a reminder that courts expect independence, balance and accuracy from experts, especially in complex mesh injury claims where patients’ credibility is often unfairly challenged.