Recent

  • Show all results for ""

🎧 New: AI-Generated Podcasts Turn your study notes into engaging audio conversations. Learn more

Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Law
56 Questions
5 Views

Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Law

Created by
@RecommendedKrypton

Podcast Beta

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the general rule of common law regarding the admissibility of opinions, beliefs, and inferences of witnesses?

  • They are admissible as they are considered objective facts
  • They are admissible only if supported by physical evidence
  • They are inadmissible to prove the truth of the matters believed or inferred (correct)
  • They are only admissible if they are based on personal experience

    • What is the main concern of expert evidence?

  • An expert's opinion on a specific matter (correct)
  • Establishing facts through eyewitness testimony
  • Presenting circumstantial evidence
  • Questioning the credibility of witnesses

    • What is the significance of the case of Buckley v Rice Thoms (1554)?

  • It introduced the concept of voir dire
  • It established the admissibility of expert evidence (correct)
  • It limited the use of circumstantial evidence
  • It established the admissibility of eyewitness testimony

    • What was the main issue in the case of R v Luttrell?

    <p>The admissibility of lip reading evidence from video footage</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the purpose of a voir dire in R v Luttrell?

    <p>To establish the admissibility of evidence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is a characteristic of expert evidence?

    <p>It draws upon bodies of knowledge and work from others in the field</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the case of R v Reed, what was the minimum level of DNA required to provide an evidential basis?

    <p>200pcg</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the main concern with using DNA evidence to secure a conviction?

    <p>The possibility of coincidence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Tserkiri, what was the ruling on using DNA evidence as the sole basis for a conviction?

    <p>There is no evidential or legal principle that prevents a case solely on the defendant's DNA profile</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the approach that courts have rejected in relation to evidence of probabilities?

    <p>The use of statistics to calculate the probability of guilt</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the primary duty of an expert witness, according to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015?

    <p>To provide an objective and unbiased opinion within their expertise</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the consequence of an expert witness being an interested party in the proceedings?

    <p>Their duty to provide an objective and unbiased opinion is overridden</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the primary purpose of Rule 19.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015?

    <p>To provide a mechanism for discussing expert issues and preparing a report explaining agreement or disagreement</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the principle established in the case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority?

    <p>That expert opinion must be logical and defensible upon interrogation</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is a potential criticism of the adversarial system in relation to expert evidence?

    <p>That it is not the best way to test expert knowledge</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is a proposed alternative to the adversarial system in relation to expert evidence?

    <p>The court appointing a single expert to advise on the reliability of parties' experts</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is a characteristic of science, as described in the context of expert evidence?

    <p>It is mutable, debatable, uncertain, and lacking consensus</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the role of the trier of fact in relation to expert evidence?

    <p>To retain their discretion to decide on what the facts actually are</p> Signup and view all the answers

    According to the common law, what is the requirement for admitting expert evidence?

    <p>Necessity and reliability</p> Signup and view all the answers

    When is expert evidence not necessary?

    <p>When the trier of fact can make their own decision</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the consequence of admitting expert evidence?

    <p>The weight to be attached is assessed by the tribunal of fact</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the general principle regarding expert evidence in defences?

    <p>Expert evidence is never needed if D is 'normal'</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the prosecutor's fallacy in DNA evidence?

    <p>The misuse of probability in DNA evidence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the issue with admitting DNA evidence?

    <p>DNA evidence is always debated and open to challenge</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the purpose of expert evidence in credibility?

    <p>To assist the jury in assessing credibility</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the requirement for admissibility of expert evidence under the common law?

    <p>The expert must be qualified and the evidence must be necessary</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the case R v Luttrell?

    <p>It held that lip reading is a well-recognised skill</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the case R v Gabriel?

    <p>It established the prosecutor's fallacy in DNA evidence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Under the general rule of common law, opinions, beliefs, and inferences of witnesses are admissible to prove the truth of the matters believed or inferred.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Expert evidence is admissible because it is based on the expert's personal experience.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The case of R v Luttrell was about the admissibility of DNA evidence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Expert evidence is an exception to the general principle that hearsay is admissible.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A voir dire is a hearing to determine the admissibility of expert evidence.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The case of Buckley v Rice Thoms established the principle that expert evidence is inadmissible.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The court in R v Luttrell held that lip reading is not a recognized skill.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Expert evidence is always necessary in a court of law.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The reliability of an expert is assessed by the jury.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The authority of an expert is part of the point, providing they only carry the weight they are due.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The common law covers the admissibility of expert evidence in all cases.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Expert evidence is never admissible in cases where the defendant is considered 'normal'.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The case of R v Reed set a minimum level of DNA of 100pcg to provide an evidential basis.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Juries are designed to make decisions based on expert evidence alone.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    It is possible to secure a conviction solely on the basis of DNA evidence.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    DNA evidence is always conclusive.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Juries can add up probabilities of individual pieces of evidence to calculate the probability of guilt.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The prosecutor's fallacy is a common misconception about DNA evidence.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Experts are required to be impartial and unbiased in their opinions.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Expert evidence is always admissible in cases where the defendant's credibility is in question.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    An expert witness is never considered an interested party in the proceedings.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The primary role of expert evidence is to help the trier of fact achieve their objective.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the adversarial system, the court always appoints a single expert to advise on the reliability of parties' experts.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The Bolitho test requires expert opinions to be logical and defensible upon interrogation.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, Rule 19.6, requires experts to provide reports instead of appearing and giving testimony.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The jury or trier of fact is bound to follow expert opinion in all cases.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Expert evidence is always necessary in criminal proceedings.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In inquisitorial systems, expert evidence is convened by the parties, rather than the court.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Study Notes

    Admissibility of Expert Evidence

    • General rule: opinions, beliefs, and inferences of witnesses are inadmissible, except for expert evidence
    • Expert evidence is an exception to the general principle that opinions are inadmissible
    • Expert evidence has been accepted since Buckley v Rice Thoms (1554)

    R v Luttrell

    • Lip reading evidence from video footage was allowed as expert evidence
    • The court held that lip reading is a well-recognised skill and from video footage is a further application of that skill

    Principles of Admissibility

    • Necessity: is expert evidence needed on the issue in question?
    • Reliability: is the expert suitably qualified to give the expert evidence?
    • If conditions are met, the evidence of the expert is admissible, but the weight to be attached is assessed by the tribunal of fact

    Necessity

    • If the trier of fact (jury) can make their own decision, no expert is needed
    • But if the issue goes beyond the experience of an ordinary person, expert evidence may be necessary
    • The authority of an expert is part of the point, providing they only carry the weight they are due

    Examples of Expert Evidence

    • MR, Defences, and Credibility Part 1
      • If D is 'normal', no expert opinion is needed
      • R v Chard: jurors decide as ordinary, reasonable people
      • R v Toner: expert evidence on the possible effect of mild hypoglycaemia was allowed
      • R v Masih: low IQ, expert evidence generally admissible
    • Defences
      • R v Turner: 'the stresses and strains of life'
      • R v Hurst: sought to adduce psychiatric evidence by duress by threats
    • Credibility
      • R v Turner: Was D being truthful? No expert needed to determine credibility

    DNA Evidence

    • There is a common misconception that DNA evidence is conclusive
    • The 'prosecutor's fallacy'
    • R v Doheny: Court of Appeal gave guidance on DNA evidence
    • R v Gabriel: case of conspiracy to possess firearms, DNA evidence linked three people to the firearm

    Expert Witnesses

    • Qualification and duties
      • Experts must be suitably qualified to give their opinions
      • Duties must be clear, so they don't usurp the trier of fact
    • Expert reports
      • Experts can provide reports instead of appearing and giving testimony
      • Counsel can push experts to edit their reports

    Assessing Expert Opinion

    • The jury/trier of fact is not bound to follow expert opinion
    • It is important that the trier of fact retains their discretion to decide on what the facts actually are
    • Expert should not override the jury's discretion or judgment

    Studying That Suits You

    Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

    Quiz Team

    Description

    Test your knowledge on the rules and exceptions of admitting expert evidence in court, including the general principle and established cases like Buckley v Rice Thoms. How well do you understand the admissibility of expert opinions in legal proceedings?

    More Quizzes Like This

    Are You an Evidence Submission Expert?
    14 questions

    Are You an Evidence Submission Expert?

    HeartwarmingRhodochrosite avatar
    HeartwarmingRhodochrosite
    Legal Evidence and Expert Witnesses Quiz
    6 questions

    Legal Evidence and Expert Witnesses Quiz

    RaptDecagon avatar
    RaptDecagon
    Legal Evidence and Expert Witnesses Quiz
    4 questions

    Legal Evidence and Expert Witnesses Quiz

    RaptDecagon avatar
    RaptDecagon
    SASU v. WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO.LTD. Case Analysis
    30 questions

    SASU v. WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO.LTD. Case Analysis

    HearteningBambooFlute avatar
    HearteningBambooFlute
    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Open
    Browser
    Browser