The Basis of the ‘Basis Rule’: The Role of the Basis Rule in the Admissibility of Expert Opinion

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.

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


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.


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.


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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 292
Author(s):  
Karen Wheelwright

This article aims to elucidate the legal principles governing the right of striking employees in Australia to payment during periods of industrial action. It explains briefly the common law antecedents to the strike pay provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and discusses in detail a number of decisions that interpret those provisions, including the recent High Court decision in CFMEU v Mammoet, which held that the prohibition on payments to employees who take protected industrial action is confined to the withholding of wages and does not permit employers to withhold other benefits, such as employer-sponsored accommodation. The article argues that, whilst the High Court decision provides a welcome clarification, there is a need for further judicial clarification of the partial work ban provisions in particular. The article discusses the assertions that the Fair Work Act provisions are overly prescriptive and the reasons for this, and suggests that they are unlikely to be relaxed in the current political climate.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 103-123
Author(s):  
Giovanna Novis Pereira

This paper will explore the role of expert witnesses in international construction arbitration across legal traditions. The focus will be to highlight the differences between the two types of experts. For the purposes of this paper, we will draw a spectrum with two extreme examples of expert witnesses. On one extreme of the spectrum, there is the expert who makes a living out of expert work and thus is seen to be closer to the client. On the other extreme of the spectrum, there is the expert who is providing an opinion on something that is his or her life’s work, this expert might never have given an expert report before. Both ends of the spectrum are heavily criticized. The goal is to distinguish both sides of the spectrum, considering the aspects of Civil Law and Common Law traditions.


2005 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-302
Author(s):  
Nicola Hodelet ◽  
Rajan Darjee

New case law on diminished responsibility in Scotland ( Galbraith v. HM Advocate 2001) re-defined the defence and clarified the role of expert witnesses. We examined how this judgment affected the use of the defence, provision of expert evidence and the outcome of trials. We studied homicide cases in one area of Scotland in the year before and the year after the new judgment. Results indicated little change in the number of cases where the defence was used, but a difference in how psychiatrists set out their opinions.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document