Roger Smith and Brian Wynne (eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law

1990 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 757-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Roderick Munday

Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. Written by leading academics and renowned for their clarity, these concise texts explain the intellectual challenges of each area of the law. Evidence provides students with a succinct yet thought-provoking introduction to all of the key areas covered on undergraduate law of evidence courses. Vibrant and engaging, the book sets out to demystify a traditionally intimidating area of law. Probing analysis of the issues, both historical and current, ensures that the text contains a thorough exploration of the ‘core’ of the subject. The book covers: the relevance and admissibility of evidence; presumptions and the burden of proof; witnesses: competence, compellability and various privileges; the course of the trial; witnesses’ previous consistent statements and the remnants of the rule against narrative; character and credibility; evidence of the defendant’s bad character; the opinion rule and the presentation of expert evidence; the rule against hearsay; confessions; drawing adverse inferences from a defendant’s omissions, lies or false alibis; and identification evidence. A clearly structured introduction, this is the ideal text for any student who may find evidence a somewhat forbidding subject.


2009 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 488-507
Author(s):  
Liz Heffernan ◽  
Mark Coen

The problems associated with the use of expert evidence by the criminal courts have been the subject of ongoing controversy. The Law Commission of England and Wales has recently added its voice to the debate with the publication of a Consultation Paper on the admissibility of expert evidence. This article examines the current law governing the reliability of expert evidence. It analyses the Law Commission's recommendation for the creation of a new statutory rule which would require the trial judge to assess evidentiary reliability as a matter of admissibility. The authors chart the emergence of the US Daubert test, on which the recommendation is based, and consider the lessons to be learned from American experience. While welcoming the recommendation in principle, the authors argue that the crafting and implementation of the proposed admissibility requirement would present formidable challenges.


2020 ◽  
pp. 633-674
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown

This chapter discusses the law on experts and opinion evidence. As a general rule, opinion evidence is inadmissible: a witness may only speak of facts that he personally perceived, not of inferences drawn from those facts. However, there are two exceptions to this general rule: (i) an appropriately qualified expert may state his opinion on a matter calling for the expertise that he possesses; and (ii) a non-expert witness may state his opinion on a matter not calling for any particular expertise as a way of conveying the facts that he personally perceived. Experts may also give evidence of fact based on their expertise. The chapter covers the duties of experts and the rules which apply where parties propose to call expert evidence


2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-284
Author(s):  
Rajan Nathan ◽  
Simon Medland

SummaryPsychiatric expert witnesses instructed to undertake assessments of defendants charged with murder should be familiar with the partial defences of diminished responsibility and loss of control. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 enacted major amendments to the partial defence of diminished responsibility and introduced a new defence of loss of control to replace the provocation partial defence. In this article, the changes to the law are described with particular focus on the implications for the psychiatric assessment.


2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 172-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. O'Brian

Recent decisions of the Courts of Appeal in England and Northern Ireland in Dallagher and O'Doherty highlight the risks of error which flow from the current lax standards of English law relating to the admission of expert evidence. Notwithstanding that in both decisions, the court purported to apply the same principles, an analysis of these cases indicates tensions in the law, and adds support to calls for the adoption of a stricter test for the admission of expert evidence.


1984 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Kenny

SynopsisThe law about expert evidence is unsatisfactory: it gives scope for the expert to usurp the role of judge, jury and parliament; it brings the professions of the experts into disrepute; and it sets juries the impossible task of sorting pseudo sciences from genuine ones. The law should be reformed by changing statutes which force expert witnesses to testify beyond their science, by taking the provision of expert evidence out of the adversarial context, and by removing from the courts the decision whether a nascent discipline is or is not a science.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document