Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This fact sheet describes the law of evidence as it relates to the admissibility
or otherwise of a witness’s opinion in criminal cases.
There are two important exceptions to the general rule. These occur in cases
where the court lacks the witness’s competence to form an opinion on a
particular issue whether through lack of direct knowledge or through lack of
expertise.
EXPERT OPINIONS
Where the court is asked to determine issues that are so far removed from the
court’s experience, expert opinion on those issues is admissible. (Folkes v
Chadd)
The areas in which expert evidence is admissible will usually be those in the
medical field, e.g., a pathologist’s opinion as to the cause of death, or in the
scientific field, e.g., the interpretation of data collected using a sound level
meter with a frequency analysis etc. However, there is often a fine line
between those issues that do call for expert’s opinion, and those that do not.
behaviour within the limits of normality, which is something that the court
can determine itself without expert psychiatric evidence. (R v Turner)
WHO IS AN EXPERT?
An expert’s opinion will be based on much more than the facts of the case
being considered in court. It will be based on experience and information
obtained from textbooks etc. This information is technically hearsay, but is
admissible as helping to form the expert’s opinion. (R v Abadom)
It should be noted that the facts of the case in which the expert’s opinion is
sought must be proved by admissible evidence, which may be given by the
expert, or some other witness, e.g., a scientist may have carried out routine
tests, which are then interpreted by an “expert”. The scientist must give
evidence of the tests and the results recorded, whilst expert opinion evidence
is then given about the interpretation of those results.
For Crown Court cases, however, the position was changed by the Crown
Court (Advance Notice of Expert Evidence) Rules 1987, made under the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) S. 81. Under these rules,
any party proposing to rely on expert evidence is required to furnish the other
side with a written statement of that expert’s findings and/or opinion. The
other side may further request written details of any test or calculation etc.
relied on by the expert in giving his/her opinion. If these rules are not adhered
to, the side wishing to rely on the opinion must seek the court’s leave to admit
it.
The expert report may be relied on in court even if the maker is not to give
oral evidence by virtue of S.30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but only
where, the court gives leave to do so. In considering whether to permit such a
report, the court will consider the relevance of the report’s contents, the
reason why the maker cannot give oral evidence, and the unfairness caused
to the accused in admitting it etc.
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 S.20 allows for
similar rules of court to be made for summary cases (in the Magistrates
Court).
RESPONSIBILITIES OF EXPERTS
Some recent cases have set out some of the responsibilities of expert
witnesses and the Courts have admonished those that approach their task in
a less than prepared manner.
In Autospin (Oil Seals) Ltd v Beehive Spinning (a firm) the court stated
that an expert witness carries out a lot of responsibility because their evidence
is afforded special respect and weight, particularly by a jury. An expert must
approach the case in which s/he is giving their opinion seriously, and expect
to be strongly censured if s/he doesn’t. This necessarily involves researching
the case thoroughly so that it is a considered expert opinion.
REFERENCES