Addressing the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceeding. Download the report Download the consultation In a criminal trial, a jury or magistrates’ court is required to determine disputed
factual issues. Experts in a relevant field are often called as witnesses to help the fact-finding body understand and interpret evidence with which that body is unfamiliar. The current judicial approach to the admissibility of expert evidence in England and Wales is one of laissez-faire. Too much expert opinion evidence is admitted without adequate scrutiny because no clear test is being applied to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. This problem is exacerbated in two ways: First, because expert evidence (particularly scientific evidence) will often be technical and complex, jurors will understandably lack the experience to be able to assess the reliability of such evidence. There is a danger that they may simply defer to the opinion of the specialist who has been called to provide expert evidence. Secondly, in the absence of a clear legal test to ensure the reliability of expert evidence, advocates do not always cross-examine experts effectively to reveal potential flaws in the experts’ methodology, data and reasoning. Juries may therefore be reaching conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence. This conclusion is confirmed by a number of miscarriages of justice in recent years. The projectWe published a consultation paper on 7 April 2009, in which we made a number of provisional proposals which would reform the law governing the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. The consultation period closed in July 2009. In our 2009 consultation paper we agreed with the view of the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee that a reliability test for expert evidence should be formulated in partnership with judges, scientists and other key players in the criminal justice system. Our provisional view that there should be a new reliability-based admissibility test was broadly (but not universally) supported by our many consultees, including judges, scientists and other key players in the criminal justice system. A summary of the responses we received is available. Following consultation, we formulated our final recommendations, produced draft legislation and again consulted with judges, lawyers and experts. Our recommendationsOur final recommendations and our draft Criminal Evidence (Experts) Bill are set out in the report we published on 22 March 2011, Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales. In the report we recommend:
The draft Criminal Evidence (Experts) Bill published with the report (as Appendix A) sets out the admissibility test that judges would apply to exclude unreliable expert evidence. ResultThe Ministry of Justice responded on 21 November 2013, indicating that it did not intend to act on the majority of our recommendations at this time. We have, however, achieved a great deal by other means:
What is the role of the expert testimony?An expert witness is a person with extensive experience or knowledge in a specific field or discipline beyond that expected from a layperson. The expert witness's duty is to apply their expertise to give a professional opinion to the tribunal or court on particular matters in dispute.
How do you give an expert testimony?25 Tips for Expert Witnesses. Understand The Question.. Think Before Answering.. Don't Accept Opposing Counsel's Statements.. Do Not “Play Lawyer”. Focus On The Question.. Remember The First Rule.. Analyze Documents Carefully Before Answering Questions About Them.. Do Not Argue.. What is an example of an expert witness?Renowned Expert witnesses include doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and other professionals who are instructed to give expert opinions in legal proceedings.
What is lay testimony mean?Any witness who is not testifying as an expert witness. Unlike an expert witness, a lay witness does not need to be qualified in any area to testify in court. A lay witness, like any other witness, must limit testimony to matters which they have personal knowledge about.
|