I am Dr. Alexander Drake, an HCPC-registered Clinical Psychologist providing independent expert psychological opinion across family, criminal, and civil courts in England and Wales. I accept instructions from any side and on a joint basis; my professional duty is to the court, and a personal value is a commitment to the truth – no matter whom it favours.
I was instructed to undertake a malingering assessment of a defendant accused of child sexual abuse who presented with neurological symptoms and memory loss. His fitness to plead had been questioned and two previous psychologists instructed. One had found him unfit to plead; the other found him fit.
The first psychologist's report was shockingly poor. Inappropriate methodology had been used, scant detail provided (the report was only 8 pages long), and no consideration given to the possibility of malingering, despite the obvious incentive.
The second psychologist's report (who determined the defendant was fit) was methodologically sound but somewhat tentative in tone. Reading between the lines, the judge seemed nervous about dismissing the defendant's quite severe presentation as a sham.
No formulation was provided by the second psychologist to help the judge understand what might be causing the defendant's presentation. The conclusion was simply that his neuropsychological test scores were implausible.
I conducted the requested tests but supplemented them with a comprehensive battery of measures used by previous psychologists — to interrogate chronological consistency — and those specific to the clinical issues putatively underlying the defendant's presentation, to evaluate clinical coherence.
I also performed a forensic review of his medical record, highlighting clinical inconsistencies and narrated a timeline of symptom progression that was linked back to discrete events relevant to the cases. I noted that the first symptoms of memory loss occurred within weeks of the first allegation against him.
I used binomial theory to produce a precise probability estimate of the plausibility of the defendant's neuropsychological test results, given the known properties of the tests that he undertook and his results. It indicated a 99.28% chance of feigning (deliberately fabricating or exaggerating symptoms).
I outlined for the court the four hypotheses that needed considering and provided a clinical description of each. I tested each hypothesis against the weight of evidence (medical review, current and historical neuropsychological test data, observation and the defendant's self-report) and described the same in my report, concluding that the most likely explanation was that the defendant had engaged in feigning.
I also provided a detailed psychological formulation for the pseudo-neurological condition so that the judge could understand the mechanisms that produced the presentation of the defendant, thus enhancing confidence in any decision subsequently made about fitness to plead.
Lucerna Opinions exists to provide robust, usable expert testimony that helps courts to understand the relevant psychological issues in each case. I do that by being responsive, working quickly, and solving the practical problem in front of you – while maintaining the highest possible methodological rigour.
My approach is evidence-based at every turn and built on triangulation. That means I do not rely solely on a clinical interview or self-report questionnaires; I integrate multiple sources of data: records, structured observation, psychometric questionnaires, cognitive and neuropsychological testing, structured tools (for example HCR-20 where appropriate) as well as the clinical interview to reach opinions that are reliable and defensible. As standard, I consider symptom and performance validity so that the court can understand how much weight can properly be placed on reported symptoms and test results.
Instructing professionals tell me they value my clear and actionable recommendations. I provide extensive, practicable guidance that can be implemented by solicitors, social workers, counsel and other professionals, often including examples of what to say rather than generic "help Mr Jones to stay relaxed" type recommendations.
I have worked in mental health services since 2009 and have been undertaking expert opinion work since 2020, including providing oral evidence in court. My training includes Bond Solon's Excellence in Report Writing, and I take pride in producing reports that are structured, transparent, and bear the weight of scrutiny.
Do you suspect some psychological factors might be at play with your client? Get your free ’10 Signs Your Client Needs A Psychologist’ cheat sheet, a quick-reference guide trusted by legal professionals to identify hidden drivers behind behaviour, testimony, and conflict.
"I have always found Dr Drake’s reports to be easy to understand and concise. He makes the effort to travel to see clients and will put himself out to see them around their availability. He is always polite and courteous to clients and makes them feel at ease, which is important to them at a difficult time for them. Dr Drake, in my view, addresses the issues requested of him and ensures that his reports reflect what is asked."
Chris Evans Senior Paralegal, Tozers LLP