Expert witnesses in English law

Last updated

The role of expert witnesses in English law is to give explanations of difficult or technical topics in civil and criminal trials, to assist the fact finding process. The extent to which authorities have been allowed to testify, and on what topics, has been debated, and to this end a variety of criteria have evolved throughout English case law.

Contents

Role

Generally, witnesses are not permitted when giving evidence to tender their own opinions as fact. The reason for this is that to allow opinion evidence would be to usurp the fact finding duties of either a jury - in criminal trials - or of the Judge. [1] : 526  Thus, a witness is allowed to testify that he saw a suspect waiting on a street corner at a specified time, but not that he believed the suspect 'looked shady', or was 'up to no good'. Such evidence would not only be irrelevant as having little probative value, but could be damaging if accepted by the tribunal as fact. [1] : 526 

The role of expert witnesses is to give certain evidence, tendered as opinion, where its basis would otherwise be outside the general expertise and knowledge of the tribunal. To this end they represent an exception to the general rule against opinion, [2] because to follow such a strict approach otherwise would result in much scientific or technical evidence being disregarded when it was not understood.

While such a proposition may seem to make logical sense where an expert witness is simply testifying as to the consistency of ballistic evidence, or of foot prints, it is flawed when considering more subjective evidence. As the nature of an expert's testimony is inherently outside of a tribunal's understanding, the tribunal will not be well placed to consider the cogency or reliability of the expert's opinion. [1] : 526  This has led to high profile miscarriages of justice where certain experts have expressed particularly strong opinions on matters without strong scientific consensus, or where they are considered to be the leading expert in their field. In such instances, it has been difficult for the court to initially refuse to admit experts, given their testimony is often necessary in the instant case.

The necessity of experts

Fingerprint evidence given by experts has been deemed necessary and reliable. Fingerprint picture.svg
Fingerprint evidence given by experts has been deemed necessary and reliable.

Given the probative value which tribunals may assign to expert witness evidence, their role has been restricted to instances where their expertise is unavoidably necessary. However, as fields of scientific knowledge continue to expand, and with the advent of forensic evidence, such instances are now commonplace, and the need for experts has been described as "ever-expanding". [1] : 527  Common areas that expert witnesses offer opinion on are ballistics, blood-alcohol calculations and levels, DNA or genetic fingerprinting, and fingerprint identification. Such areas are the least controversial, as the expert is testifying on generally accepted science, and their opinion will, in the absence of fraud, be reproducible by other experts. It is where the opinions of experts are not firmly grounded in fact that they have faced controversy.

The primary test as to whether an expert is necessary at trial is whether their expertise falls within the experience and knowledge of the Judge or jury. If it is thought that the tribunal has sufficient understanding of the principles the expert will be testifying on, then the expert is inadmissible. By way of example, two cases relating to the recollection of memories by witnesses demonstrate this rule. In the case of R v Browning, [3] an expert was not allowed to testify on the expected ordinary deterioration of memories in healthy individuals; such a matter was seen to be firmly within the experience of ordinary individuals, and the weight of any long term memories could be accordingly assessed. On the other hand, an expert was allowed in the later case of R v H (JR) [4] to present evidence on a complainant's recollections from a period of childhood amnesia, given that ordinary jurors would not know the complexities associated with the recollections of such individuals. Experts have also been deemed necessary to testify about the complexities of memories recalled through hypnosis, given that tribunals will not often be versed in the dangers of such memories being more susceptible to falsehoods. [5]

Mental defects

Experts are admissible as a necessity where a defendant pleads an insanity defence, or a defence of diminished responsibility. In these circumstances it is necessary for an expert to assess whether the individual was suffering from a recognised psychiatric disease, in order for the defence to succeed. The Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 requires:

written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners at least one of whom is duly approved.

Where an individual attempts to adduce expert evidence in aid of their defence, they must have been suffering from a genuine and recognised mental condition, which was capable of producing effects on the mind and body outside the expertise of the tribunal. Thus, in R v Smith, [6] a defendant to murder by stabbing was permitted to call an expert to explain the effects of automatism, which he had been suffering from. It has been made clear that in cases where individuals are merely vulnerable or easily susceptible to suggestion, expert witnesses may not be called in order to testify to such characteristics. In R v Weightman it was stated that:

"... the principle to be learnt from the cases, notably the case of Turner, is that a psychiatrists evidence is inadmissible where its purpose is in effect to tell a jury how a person who is not suffering from mental illness is likely to react to the stresses and strains in life." [7]

This case has been followed by R v Walker, [8] where an individual accused of shoplifting attempted to adduce expert evidence of their condition, which it was claimed made them more vulnerable to threats of duress. While the case was described as borderline by the Court of Appeal, it was decided that such evidence could be properly admitted where it was not commonly found in ordinary individuals. A strict approach to such evidence has faced criticism in some cases, with the decision of R v Masih [9] highlighting how a borderline case may be difficult for the courts. Here, an individual with an IQ of 72 was not permitted to adduce expert evidence of his difficulties in comprehension, social situations, and of his particular vulnerabilities. Had his IQ been three points lower at 69, he would have been seen in law as having a mental defect, and thus such evidence would have been admissible.

Witness credibility

While expert evidence may be deemed relevant when deciding the impact of any mental defect of the accused, it has generally been ruled that evidence cannot be adduced as to the credibility of witnesses. [1] : 532  In the care proceedings of Re S (a child) (adoption: psychological evidence) it was deemed wrong that a Judge should consider evidence that the mother in the proceedings was prone to lie to authorities, based on the results of a psychological test. Another clear example is illustrated in R v Robinson, [10] where the prosecution called an educational psychiatrist to effectively bolster the testimony of the complainant, by asserting that due to his educational difficulties he was unlikely to lie. The Court of Appeal overturned the appellant's conviction based on this evidence, with the court labeling such evidence as merely 'oath-helping'. [11] A limited exception to the rule was established in R v Lowery. [12] Here, two co-defendants were charged with murder, with the facts of the case such that one of them must have committed the offence. The court allowed one co-defendant to present expert evidence of the other's propensity for violence and of his lack of self-control, with the expert giving the opinion that this defendant was more likely to have committed the offence. While this case has been relied upon to some extent in the later case of R v Randall, [13] it has been made clear in several other cases that Lowery was decided on its unique facts. [14] [1] : 533 

In 2006, the government consulted on whether experts could testify as to the psychological effects of rape and sexual assault on victims [15] to dispel rape myths. Expert witnesses can testify to the psychological harms suffered by complainants in such cases, [16] but expert evidence on the credibility of complainants in sexual offences is generally not admissible. [17] [18]

Confessions

Although expert witnesses are not allowed to testify as to the credibility of a witness, they have been permitted to testify as to the credibility or reliability of a confession. The test as to where this will be permissible is similar to that used for general psychiatric evidence; the individual seeking to adduce expert testimony must have been suffering from a genuine personality disorder outside the understanding of the tribunal, and this must have some effect of rendering their confession unreliable. [1] : 533  Where such evidence is adduced, it has been made clear by R v O'Brien [19] that the jury must be instructed they are not under obligation to accept such evidence, but must consider it with regard to the confession in issue. A second situation where evidence has been permitted is where there are allegations that a confession may have been coerced, or given as a form of compliance rather than voluntarily. In R v Blackburn [20] the Court of Appeal ruled that the area of coerced confessions fell outside the experience of ordinary individuals, and thus expert evidence may be adduced where this is at issue.

Reliability

"The better, and now more widely accepted, view is that so long as the field is sufficiently well-established to pass the ordinary tests of relevance and reliability, then no enhanced test of admissibility should be applied, but the weight of the evidence should be established by the same adversarial forensic techniques applicable elsewhere."
R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903

Where it is considered that an expert witness may be required to give evidence, it is still necessary to consider whether the theory or basis for their evidence is well founded, or generally accepted. If it is not, then there is a risk that a tribunal may attach undue weight to an expert's opinion which may only be his own, or that numerous experts could be called who would disagree with each other. [21] This has been recognised by the English courts in a series of decisions, and while no general test has been explicitly stated, an approach analogous to that of the American courts has been adopted. In R v Gilfoyle [22] the court appeared to suggest that where an expert opinion could not be independently reviewed by any given criteria, this would prevent its admittance. Shortly after in R v Dallagher [23] this stance was expanded upon, with the case focusing on ear-print evidence. Perhaps worryingly however, in approving a passage from the American case of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the court chose not to give regard to any of the factors for admittance that the American courts had used. These include whether a given technique can be independently tested, whether it has been published in accredited journals and peer-reviewed, and whether it is generally accepted. [1] : 536  Without having regard to these factors, the Court of Appeal decided controversially that ear-print identifications were admissible, despite a general consensus as to their ability to identify individuals uniquely. The same principles were approved in R v Luttrell, [24] where the Court established that in some occasions, the reliability of expert evidence would not affect its admissibility, but merely require a warning as to its shortcomings and error rate in the form of jury instructions. [25]

It can be seen in a string of cases however that such an approach is capable of producing miscarriages of justice, given the weight which is attached to expert evidence.

Admissibility

The test for admissibility of expert evidence into court is based on whether it is relevant and helpful. Decisions regarding helpfulness of evidence often depends upon the facts of the case and are made by the judge and tend to be contextual rather than based on fixed legal principles. The Court of Appeal is unlikely to interfere unless the decision constitutes so-called "Wednesbury unreasonableness". [26] : 51 

Commentators have criticised the current standards on the grounds of the criteria for decisions being obscure and insufficiently rigorous. The Law Commission suggested a more rigorous framework after a consultation, however the Government chose not to enact the law instead updating the Consolidated Criminal Practice Directives to include a number of suggested factors for consideration. [26] : 52  Roberts describes these directives as well as advice published by the Judicial College and to a lesser sense guidance by professional association as a form of soft law, writings that do not formally bind a court but nevertheless influence their decisions, which guide decision making surrounding expert evidence. [26] : 53 

See also

Related Research Articles

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.

In English criminal law, public nuisance is a act, condition or thing that is illegal because it interferes with the rights of the general public.

In common law, a foundation is sufficient preliminary evidence of the authenticity and relevance for the admission of material evidence in the form of exhibits or testimony of witnesses. Although the word "Foundation" does not appear in the Federal Rules of Evidence, scholars have argued that its existence is displayed, albeit implicitly, when viewing all the rules in context.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a statutory offence of aggravated assault in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Hong Kong and the Solomon Islands. It has been abolished in the Republic of Ireland and in South Australia, but replaced with a similar offence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

In the law of criminal evidence, a confession is a statement by a suspect in crime which is adverse to that person. Some secondary authorities, such as Black's Law Dictionary, define a confession in more narrow terms, e.g. as "a statement admitting or acknowledging all facts necessary for conviction of a crime," which would be distinct from a mere admission of certain facts that, if true, would still not, by themselves, satisfy all the elements of the offense. The equivalent in civil cases is a statement against interest.

Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complainant in a sexual assault trial, or that limits cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of a complainant in a sexual assault case.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

An ‘implied assertion’ is a statement or conduct that implies a side issue surrounding certain admissible facts which have not necessarily complied within rules of relevance. There is varying opinion on whether hearsay evidence of implied assertions should be admissible in court to prove or justify the issue within contents. Implied assertions are generally considered less reliable than regular statements, because of how easy it is to fabricate them.

In eyewitness identification, in criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court".

An ultimate issue in criminal law is a legal issue at stake in the prosecution of a crime for which an expert witness is providing testimony.

The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. It is used on any occasion when it is considered the person being spoken to is under suspicion of having committed one or more criminal offences and consequently thus potentially being subject to criminal proceedings.

Opinion evidence refers to direct evidence outlining what the expert witness, believes, or infers in regard to facts, as distinguished from personal knowledge of the facts themselves. In common law jurisdictions the general rule is that a witness is supposed to testify as to what was observed and not to give an opinion on what was observed. However, there are two exceptions to this rule: expert evidence and non-expert opinion given by laymen which people in their daily lives reach without conscious ratiocination.

Forensic speechreading is the use of speechreading for information or evidential purposes. Forensic speechreading can be considered a branch of forensic linguistics. In contrast to speaker recognition which is often the focus of voice analysis from an audio record, forensic speechreading usually aims to establish the content of speech, since the identity of the talker is usually apparent. Often, it involves the production of a transcript of lipread video-records of talk that lack a usable audiotrack, for example CCTV material. Occasionally, 'live' lipreading is involved, for example in the Casey Anthony case. Forensic speechreaders are usually deaf or from deaf families (CODA), and use speechreading in their daily lives to a greater extent than people with normal hearing outside the deaf community. Some speechreading tests suggest deaf people can be better lipreaders than most hearing people.

<i>R v Adomako</i> UKHL case on gross negligence manslaughter

R v Adomako[1994] UKHL 6, was a landmark United Kingdom criminal law case where the required elements to satisfy the legal test for gross negligence manslaughter at common law were endorsed and refined. It was held that in cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence involving a breach of duty the gross negligence test relied on by the Court of Appeal was sufficient and that it was not necessary to direct a jury to consider whether the recklessness definition should be applied. The test, as set out in R v Bateman 19 Cr. App. R.8 and Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576, confirmed that there needed to be in existence a breach of duty of care where the serious and obvious risk of death was reasonably foreseeable and that the breach or omission in question caused actual death and that the conduct of the defendant, when all the circumstances were considered, was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission. The requirement to show that the defendant's breach of duty was "gross" helped develop the definition of gross negligence.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Keane, Adrian; McKeown, Paul (2012). The modern law of evidence (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-969832-5.
  2. ↑ "When is an Expert Opinion Allowed in Law?". Elvidence Computer Forensics. 24 October 2014. Retrieved 24 October 2014.
  3. ↑ R v Browning [1995] Crim LR 227
  4. ↑ R v H (JR) (Childhood Amnesia) [2006] 1 Cr App R 195
  5. ↑ As was discussed and decided in the case of R v Land [1998] 1 Cr App R 301
  6. ↑ R v Smith [1979] 1 WLR 1445
  7. ↑ R v Weightman [1991] 92 Cr App R 291, p. 297
  8. ↑ R v Walker [2003] EWCA Crim 1837; David Ormerod; David Perry, eds. (2023). Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2024 (34 ed.). Oxford University Press. F11.19. ISBN   9780198892489.
  9. ↑ R v Masih [1986] Crim LR 395
  10. ↑ R v Robinson [1994] 98 Cr App R 370
  11. ↑ [1994] 98 Cr App R 370, p. 374
  12. ↑ R v Lowery [1974] AC 85
  13. ↑ R v Randall [2004] 1 All ER 467
  14. ↑ As in R v Turner.
  15. ↑ "Convicting Rapists and Protecting Victims – Justice for Victims of Rape". Office for Criminal Justice Reform. Available at http://www.mensaid.com/documents/cons-290306-justice-rape-victims.pdf Archived 21 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine [retrieved 16 May 2011]
  16. ↑ "Rape and Sexual Offences - Chapter 3: Case Building | The Crown Prosecution Service". www.cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 18 July 2024.
  17. ↑ R v ER [2010] EWCA Crim 2522 (20 October 2010)
  18. ↑ R v C [2012] EWCA Crim 1478 (6 July 2012)
  19. ↑ R v O'Brien [2000] Crim LR 676
  20. ↑ R v Blackburn [2005] EWCA Crim 1349 (25 May 2005)
  21. ↑ Keane, p. 534
  22. ↑ R v Gilfoyle [2001] 2 Cr App R 5
  23. ↑ R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
  24. ↑ R v Luttrell [2004] 2 Cr App R 520
  25. ↑ [2004] 2 Cr App R 520, at 44 , see forensic speechreading
  26. 1 2 3 Roberts, Paul (30 November 2018). "Making sense of forensic science evidence". Forensic Science Evidence and Expert Witness Testimony: 27–70. doi: 10.4337/9781788111034.00008 .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.