12. Expert Evidence

Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo

Chapter 12 deals with expert evidence. It discusses the principles governing the admissibility of expert opinion evidence; use of the work of others and the rule against hearsay; expert witnesses; ‘battles of experts’ and the presentation of expert evidence; and disclosure and evaluation of expert evidence.

2021 ◽  
pp. 295-334
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo

Chapter 12 deals with expert evidence. It discusses the principles governing the admissibility of expert opinion evidence; use of the work of others and the rule against hearsay; expert witnesses; ‘battles of experts’ and the presentation of expert evidence; and disclosure and evaluation of expert evidence.


Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

This chapter, which focuses on opinion evidence in criminal and civil cases in the UK, explains the rule on the admissibility of opinion, including expert opinion, as well as notice and disclosure in criminal cases under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014. The criteria for the admissibility of expert evidence, the responsibilities of expert witnesses, and the approach of the courts to new areas of expertise are examined in detail. It also considers the presentation of expert evidence, including the use of court-appointed experts, in civil cases under the Civil Procedure Rules, and, finally, examines the ultimate issue rule, which has been abolished by section 33(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1972.


2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-337
Author(s):  
Trang Phan ◽  
David Caruso

The ‘basis rule’ is, in general terms, a rule which restricts expert witnesses to giving opinion evidence in respect of which there is or will be proof, by other admissible evidence, of the facts and assumptions upon which the opinion is based. There has been no clear consensus as to whether the basis rule exists either at common law or under the Uniform Evidence Legislation, or whether the rule goes to admissibility or weight. This article examines the jurisprudence, with a particular focus on the recent High Court decision of Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar. The authors argue that the controversy surrounding the basis rule has been the result of a misunderstanding and misconstruction of the rule. They argue that the conflict may be resolved by understanding the basis rule as simply a rearticulation, in the specific context of expert evidence, of the requirement that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. The weight of that expert evidence remains to be determined in accordance with ordinary principles.


2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (4) ◽  
pp. 360-375
Author(s):  
KRZYSZTOF JÓŹWICKI

Evidence in the form of an expert opinion is usually of key importance for settling a pending case in any type of proceedings. In some cases, the role of the expert witness is closer to that of a judge rather than that of a witness, since a judge who does not have special knowledge often has to use evidence given by an expert to render a judgement. For this reason, issuing a false expert opinion results in a very high risk of delivering a wrong and unfair decision in a given case, which in turn has a negative impact on the social perception of the functioning of the justice system. In the Polish Criminal Code, criminal responsibility for issuing a false opinion is stipulated in Article 233 (4) and (4a) of the Penal Code. At the same time, despite a very large number of reports of suspicion that a crime has been committed by an expert witness, only a negligible number of investigations result in a bill of indictment and a conviction, which causes virtual impunity of perpetrators and has a negative impact on the functioning of criminal justice. Due to the diagnosed research gap in this area, the need to investigate and describe the phenomenon of issuing false opinions by expert witnesses, both in normative and criminological terms, on the basis of empirical research, has been clearly seen. The main objective of the research has been to characterise the phenomenon in question on many levels and to determine its real extent, its etiology and symptomatology. An additional aim of the research has been the verifi cation of research hypotheses and recognition of the normative sphere of the expert witness’s status, expert evidence, and principles of responsibility for issuing false opinions. The research fi ndings have resulted in proposals of solutions aimed both at limiting the phenomenon of issuing false opinions and more effective prosecution of perpetrators of crimes under Article 233 (4) of the Penal Code, which in turn may translate into more effi cient functioning of the entire justice system, as expert witnesses and their work are an extremely important aspect of thereof. The conducted research has fully confi rmed the research hypotheses and precisely indicated defective areas of expert evidence, and consequently the need to introduce immediate legislative changes. Some of the research conclusions and de lege ferenda postulates were implemented into the amended provisions of the Penal Code in 2016, which fully confi rms their legitimacy. Unfortunately, there is still no legal act of statutory rank which would comprehensively regulate the status of expert witnesses and expert evidence.


2019 ◽  
pp. 174-191
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

This chapter, which focuses on opinion evidence in criminal and civil cases in the UK, explains the rule on the admissibility of opinion, including expert opinion, as well as notice and disclosure in criminal cases under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014. The criteria for the admissibility of expert evidence, the responsibilities of expert witnesses, and the approach of the courts to new areas of expertise are examined in detail. It also considers the presentation of expert evidence, including the use of court-appointed experts, in civil cases under the Civil Procedure Rules, and, finally, examines the ultimate issue rule, which has been abolished by section 33(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1972.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 698-718
Author(s):  
Emma Rowden ◽  
Anne Wallace

This article reports on empirical research conducted into the use of audiovisual links (videolinks) to take expert testimony in jury trials. Studies reveal ambivalent attitudes to court use of videolink, with most previous research focussed on its use for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Our study finds there are issues unique to expert witnesses appearing by videolink, such as compromised ability to gesture and interact with exhibits and demonstrative tools, and reductions in availability of feedback to gauge juror understanding. Overall, the use of videolinks adds an additional cognitive load to the task of giving expert evidence. While many of these issues might be addressed through environmental or technological improvements, we argue this research has broader ramifications for expert witnesses and the courts. The use of videolinks for taking expert evidence exposes the contingent nature of expertise and the cultural scaffolding inherent in its construction. In reflecting on the implications of these findings, and on the way that reliability, credibility and expertise are defined and established in court, we suggest a more critical engagement with the relationship between content and mode of delivery by stakeholders.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (212) ◽  
pp. 735-739
Author(s):  
Nuwadatta Subedi ◽  
Hima Raj Giri

Introduction: The medico legal reports and certificates prepared by doctors can be used as valuable documentary evidence in the court of law. The study was designed with objectives to explore the perception of judges and lawyers about the quality of medico legal reports prepared by the doctors and their competence in providing the expert evidence in the court. Methods: It is a questionnaire based cross sectional study conducted among the district judges and government attorneys of 75 districts of Nepal from March to May 2016. The data obtained was analysed by SPSS version 16.0. Results: Among a total of 78 participants who responded the questionnaire, 40 (51.3%) were district judges and 38 (48.7%) district attorneys. Most of them graded that the reports prepared by the doctors were just average. Among them, 49 (63.6%) strongly agreed and 28 (36.4%) partially agreed that the reports were useful in deciding the cases. A total of 44 (56.4%) respondents strongly agreed and 34 (43.6%) partially agreed that expert opinion of the doctors in the courts were useful to decide the cases. Seventy one (92.2%) of them rated general doctors as moderately competent. Conclusions: The medical reports prepared by the Nepalese doctors were just average as perceived by judges and lawyers and the competency in presenting the evidence in courts was moderate as rated by them.


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-99
Author(s):  
Zhiyuan Guo

Psychiatric evaluation is widely used in criminal cases to screen people with mental disorder because insanity can either exempt the offender from criminal responsibility or mitigate his/her criminal punishment. The operation of psychiatric evaluation in China used to carry a typical characteristic of civil law tradition, but recent reforms have strengthened the procedural safeguards for psychiatric evaluation and stressed the requirement of its presentation and examination in criminal trials. This article will explore how psychiatric evaluation is conducted, and how the expert opinion is presented and examined as evidence in criminal trials in China. Part I will give a historical overview of psychiatric evaluation in China's criminal cases. Part II will introduce the current legislation on psychiatric evaluation in China. Part III will explore problems with current legislation and practice. In this part, high-profile cases will be cited to illustrate loopholes in the psychiatric evaluation law and practical problems with the operation of evaluation. Potential solutions to these loopholes or problems will also be explored. Part IV will focus on the presentation and examination of psychiatrists’ expert opinion in criminal trials. Although expert witnesses are also required to testify before the court in China, very few of them take the stand in practice. This part will discuss why reforms kept failing and what should be done to bring expert witnesses to court. Psychiatrists are important expert witnesses; the discussion of live psychiatrists will shed light on the appearance of all the expert witnesses in Chinese criminal trials.


Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and diagrams and flow charts. This chapter explores an area of evidence law dominated by expert witness evidence and the extent to which flawed testimony leads to miscarriages of justice. Expert evidence is now commonplace in criminal and civil trials, and the courts and Parliament have developed procedures to ensure that it is of high quality. These are an eclectic mix of common law and statute and their development reflects the importance of scientific expertise. It is necessary to be familiar with the differences between expert and non-expert opinion evidence and on when and in what circumstances both types are admissible and questions that can be asked of the expert whilst giving evidence. The approach depends on whether the question relates to civil or criminal trials


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document