9. Opinion 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.

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.


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.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 682
Author(s):  
Arman SAKHARBAY ◽  
Askar Kadyrovich KALIYEV ◽  
Moldir Saparbekkyzy BAIKOMUROVA

The research analyzes the possible application and effectiveness of a monetary penalty as one of the most useful sanctions to maintain the established order of criminal justice, as well as develops constructive proposals to improve the criminal procedure legislation based on the conducted survey. To this end, the authors of the article have studied the criminal procedure legislation of Kazakhstan and legislation on administrative offenses, considered scientific opinions presented in numerous publications on relevant topics and conducted a comparative analysis of regulatory systems in Kazakhstan, Germany, Austria, the USA and the UK. As a result, the authors have established that one of the main reasons hindering the adequate implementation of criminal justice is the violation of obligations to participate in criminal proceedings by persons named in the Criminal Procedure Code of Kazakhstan. To maintain procedural discipline, the court is provided with ample opportunities in the form of coercive measures, including a monetary penalty. The authors have investigated the legal nature of a monetary penalty and compared it with administrative fines. The authors have considered grounds and application procedures for this sanction in the criminal procedure legislation of Kazakhstan and some foreign legal systems. The authors have determined the problems of its implementation caused by the slovenly legislation of a monetary penalty that impedes law enforcement activity. A comprehensive analysis allows developing proposals for improving the use of monetary penalties as measures of coercion for criminal cases heard in the court. If these proposals are enshrined in the existing regulatory framework and put into practice, they will strengthen the discipline of parties to criminal proceedings, ensure the strict observance of criminal proceedings and increase their general effectiveness. Due to its conclusions and proposals, the article demonstrates the novelty of the conducted research, the authors' original approach to the analysis of information and innovative ways to improve the existing legislative framework.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-158
Author(s):  
Mateusz Niedźwiecki ◽  

The text presents the issue related to the expert evidence in simplified proceedings. It takes into account the latest amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure introduced by the Act of 4 July 2019 amending the Code of Civil Procedure and certain other acts. Pursuant to the above Act, it was allowed to appoint experts in simplified proceedings by rewording article 505 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are three paragraphs in it, each of which concerns various issues related to obtaining an expert opinion or, with reference to § 1 and § 2, with the resignation from seeking such an opinion. The author analyzes the introduced regulation, referring to the advantages and disadvantages of new solutions. The article also refers to the views expressed in the literature and judicature regarding the discussed issues.


Author(s):  
Torremans Paul

This chapter examines the question of proof of foreign law and particularly the onus of proving that the foreign law is different from English law. Foreign law is treated as a question of fact, but it is ‘a question of fact of a peculiar kind’. To describe foreign law as one of fact is apposite, in the sense that the applicable law must be ascertained according to the evidence of witnesses, yet there can be no doubt that what is involved is at bottom a question of law. The courts have concluded that a mistake as to foreign law is to be regarded as a mistake of fact. This chapter first explains how foreign law is proved, including the use of expert witnesses, before turning to witnesses who can prove foreign law. It also considers the role of the English courts under the Civil Procedure Rules in dealing with expert evidence.


2021 ◽  
pp. 83-90
Author(s):  
Anna Smajdor ◽  
Jonathan Herring ◽  
Robert Wheeler

This chapter explains the procedure followed in criminal cases and civil cases. It explores the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in criminal prosecutions. It also considers the important role that expert witnesses can play in civil proceedings and what the expectations are of those who put themselves forward for that role.


Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown

This chapter discusses the circumstances in which relevant evidence can be excluded, as a matter of law or discretion, on the grounds that it was obtained illegally, improperly, or unfairly. The principles for exclusion of evidence are considered, and exclusion in both civil and criminal cases discussed. In respect of civil cases, discretionary exclusion under the civil procedure rules is discussed. In respect of criminal cases, discretionary exclusion at common law and under statute is discussed. The chapter also considers the circumstances in which criminal proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of the court’s process, where a trial would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document