Consultant Urological Surgeon



Duncan Harriss, DM FRCS (Urol) is a consultant urological surgeon at the Nottingham University NHS Trust, Nottingham.

Duncan qualified at Guys Hospital in London and completed his specialist training in Nottingham, together with obtaining a Doctor of Medicine at the University of Nottingham.

He was appointed as a consultant urological surgeon in 1997 and is now the senior urological surgeon in the Nottingham Urology Centre, Nottingham City Hospital being the first urologist in Nottingham to sub-specialise in prostate cancer and care.

Highly respected, he regularly performs extensive surgery for urological cancer and trauma. Privately, he has varied experience in all aspects of urology. Duncan also runs a national/international clinic for vasectomy reversal surgery.

Duncan also has considerable experience as a medico-legal expert witness and his terms and conditions can be found here and his medical indemnity can be found here.

duncan harriss


For medico-legal assistance:

“Mr Harriss provided clear “user-friendly” explanations of the relevant anatomy, the surgery, the likely mechanism of the injury and the consequences. He is a thoughtful expert who reflects upon his opinion appropriately and whilst firm in his views, is not unduly robust. A Court is likely to find his views persuasive.”

Fiona Patterson QC 

“I can highly commend Mr Duncan Harriss, Consultant Urologist, as a medicolegal expert on issues relating to urology.  His reports are thorough and well considered and are written in language which is accessible to the lay reader.

“In conference Mr Harriss has an easy understanding of the issues and is of considerable assistance to both his instructing solicitors and Counsel.

“Mr Harriss gives evidence in Court in a competent and straightforward manner which a Court is likely to find helpful in deciding issues which require expert evidence in Mr Harriss’ field.”

Jobling Gowler Solicitors

"Turning then to the evidence of Mr. Harriss I have read his report dated 3rd May 2017, along with his letter of the 10th July 2017 and the joint report signed by him on the 4th August 2017.   He is plainly very experienced in the training and use of the relevant tests for urinary problems.  He told me that a CT KUB alone would not have reported on drainage or function of the kidney and therefore would not have been appropriate on the 8th May 2012.   The CT-IVU or the IVU was the only test that absent any other test would have reported on all three issues….It follows that where there is a material dispute between Mr. XXXX and Mr. Harriss, I prefer the evidence of Mr. Harriss."

L.H. v Wirral University

I recently worked with Mr Harriss in the context of a complex clinical negligence action involving a GP failure to refer a patient for cystoscope resulting in a delay in diagnosis of bladder cancer. 
The claim was contested on causation and quantum resulting in a 6 day trial in the High Court sitting in Bristol Civil Justice Centre before HHJ Cotter QC.
Mr Harriss was an impressive and thoughtful witness and the judge preferred his evidence over that of his opposite number.
The Claimant was hugely impressed and satisfied with Mr Harriss' input which was not always favourable on all issues.
Prior to the trial Mr Harriss prepared several preliminary and final reports for the court, he worked well with counsel and other experts. He is prepared to consider propose and consider theories but is very careful not to be led by instructing solicitors or counsel. 
His reports on causation and condition and prognosis were sensibly structured and helpful. He was very responsive to requests for further information and made himself available to discuss issues in this case.  He has excellent administrative support and the people he works with are also great communicators. 
The case was not without its challenges and I am quite certain that he was a key player in the successful outcome of the claim for the claimant.
Richard Harries, Solicitor
I found that the evidence of Mr Harriss was careful and had a logical basis. His conclusion....and his explanations for the occasional inconsistent records I found to be reasonable.
Judgement of AG v UHLNHSFT

For vasectomy reversals:

"I would like to thank Mr Harriss and his staff for the exceptionally good service provided for my vasectomy reversal both pre and post operation. 

"I had been under another Consultant Urologist approximately two years ago and the difference in quality of service is quite considerable. If I have one piece of advice for anyone considering a reversal it is quite simply this; go to a consultant who does the operation day in day out. Many may be qualified to perform this surgery but if they are not doing it on a near daily basis then they will not have the experience and honed skills necessary to get the result you want.

1st February 2016 (for more see The Vasectomy Reversal Centre Facebook page).

the vasectomy reversal centre