![]() ![]() ![]() An expert cannot be asked to state an opinion on the ultimate issue (guilt or innocence). ![]() A sci-entific expert may, for instance, rely on publications in journals, databases, and textbooks as source mate-rial for the opinions they give in evidence. One further feature of the expert evidence is that an expert may rely on information, which in other circumstances, would be regarded as hearsay. Failure to do so will render expert opinion inadmissible. It is also the case that an expert's views on subjects within the understanding of the tribunal are inadmis-sible as explained poignantly by Lawton LJ: "The fact that an expert witness has impressive scientific qualifications does not by that fact alone make his opinion on matters of human nature and behaviour within the limits of normality any more helpful than that of the jurors but there is a danger that they may think it does." By Rule 24 Criminal Procedure Rules in criminal trials the evidence of the expert must be, as soon as practicable, furnished to the other side along with the expert's observations, calculations, and other procedures. Where the tribunal of fact has sufficient knowl-edge and understanding of the subject, it is not necessary to call an expert and this renders expert tes-timony inadmissible, R v. If indeed an expert is required, then evidence of a nonexpert is not admissible. There has long been some difficulty in determin-ing which matters require an expert opinion but, in general, where the evidence to be given is outside the experience of the court, there is a prima facie require-ment for an expert. "An expert was only qualified to give evidence that was relevant if his knowledge and expertise was beyond that of the layman and such evidence had to relate to a factual issue in the case". In the civil courts, the admissibility of expert evidence is governed by section 3 of the Civil Evidence Act 1972 and rules of the court. Middleton 2 QB 766 would seem to agree that the expert need only have exper-tise beyond that of a layman, not that the expert be qualified beyond that of a layman. Silverlock 2 QB 766, an amateur graphologist was allowed to act as an expert on handwriting and a number of cases since have maintained the position that expert status can be obtained by personal expe-rience as well as by formal training. It is the court that decides the validity of the expert witness and it is not necessary, in most cases, that the person called is formally qualified. This duty overrides any contractual obligation that may have been formed between the expert and the party instructing and paying them. There is no such thing as a claimant's or a defendant's expert and, by Rule 35.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, it is the duty of the expert to assist the court on matters within their expertise. The role of the expert in UK courts is to assist the court itself in deciding the reliability of evidence. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |